The URL can be used to link to this page

NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN HISTORIC AREAS J�1 I-1i57 p15 ; I i [iIt .:" _ sue---,•-• :,:e45i))' !:;-::; ['1,i--:::N1-4 r„:7E,,, sj,, ,-;.,,;,--. ,,,_-,,, --,, i..:.-,.77\;, , V„::-.-,-„:;:; ,.,:-,,./7.; F rt,,:;:; ,...,10: .:N:r.:---:.....-.,,,,.3,: - • Information Series No. 62, 1992 RE ire``N G NEW CON S T RU C I ION T3n nT r,-pc ;1 T cmrmD Tn Afl r A c i £�v)��I \ i its v �L. -i.l\-�.C1. he design of new construction in a historic context is a subject that so- licits passionate opinions from everybody—architects,neighborhood activists, developers,property owners, even the supposed casual observer. Consequently, it is not surprising that new construction projects in locally designated historic districts continue to be among the liveliest, and most challenging applications that preservation commissions review. Reviewing New Construction Projects in Historic Areas: Procedures for Local Preservation Commissions was first published in 1986 by the North- east Regional Office of the National Trust. The purpose remains the same: to encourage responsible,rational decisions by providing preservation coin- dill, missions an outline of the basic documents and procedures that are essen- tial to the public design review process of new construction projects in historic districts. In 1986, there were an estimated 1,200 locally designated historic districts in the United States; six years later, that number has grown beyond 1,800. The same six year period has seen a gradual decline in the number of new construction projects in historic districts which reflects the national eco- nomic climate.This does not mean,however, that preservation commis- sions, especially those that may be reviewing new construction projects for the first time, are finding these decisions any less difficult or complicated. In addition to a new set of illustrations, there are minor variations worth noting between the 1986 and the 1992 versions of Reviewing New Con- struction Projects. The 1992 version encourages communities to revise the basic documents, i.e., surveys,preservation plans, design guidelines, and or- dinances, that govern historic districts. Many locally designated districts are entering their second, third,perhaps even fourth stage of development but the documents are woefully outdated and do not reflect the districts as they now exist. The resources that are available to preservation commissions have grown and/or strengthened considerably. The Certified Local Government pro- gram (CLG)is one example of an organizational resource that has impacted the establishment and operation of preservation commissions in many states. Technological resources such as the video taping of an entire dis- t. trict, computer imaging, or computer mapping systems are being used or at least considered by a greater number of preservation commissions. iN _o_= _„ Jo"! !s oil. !ese F ari or, 1 Preservation commissions review a ;� 4 -. r �r_ �: range of design solutions for new construction projects in historic YX p � �i' settings. The New York City , - - , . '' ; ; • ,'•�J ;`,,._ Landmarks Preservation Commis- ;� 's - , .•—:: '- A r'* ' r sion approved the reconstruction ofH. —.'X '` �- u� a row house at 27 Tompkins Place ' : r „err -^ Jr. ' �.. in the Cobble Hill Historic District `f,*3�) is -: i y41 d, in Brooklyn. The original structure -.��E - ` a�>'. .��'- ! • ..°• was destroyed by fire and reconstruo- �*.; — _ - ,� ", z, , lion was considered the best solution `Y `�- 4 ° �, ern > to maintaining the continuity of the t= i _ z.�w z _ - , streetscape. The new structure is a - ` _�` - `�- "'%"' - r. - Tmi,:i..:,_;„....a„..,1„,.; :z__,_.,:,:_,I_____,_ , ., --" r „::;:_?......:; two anvil condomini � I - } t � r�f Y um. Architect4fT - DiFiore, Giacobbe&Associates. r�'+, _ V -�•� "�� -e..Y-ems• - ,� _ �R ?u..; ` iv- S .. t Y wY`Jr. o4.'r _� — - .Y.,�� ::,� Fes- _ ....� � !� ��' _ r- r • 3 _ 4 . _ ,._. :„t,_,.._,_, , .;_r_._,_____...., `• \� L,'tea- T '1- s' J �1,. �_ j K J1 ' v ad►?� k�'r•�� — - _ These developments as well as other factors suggest that the 1990s will be progressively active and challenging years for preservation commissions in their capacity as reviewers of new design in historic districts. There will be a greater melding and coordination of the oftentimes overlapping if not con- flicting functions of preservation commissions and other municipal plan- ning and zoning boards. This will expedite the application and review process,make it more understandable to the public, and hopefully,relieve many preservation commissions of being held solely accountable for new construction decisions in their communities. Although the number of districts will continue to grow, albeit at a slower pace, organized opposition by property rights groups to both the designation of additional districts and the administration of existing districts is also likely to grow. This could discourage new construction in those districts that are perceived as being unstable or threatened, or inhibit commissions from regulating anything beyond minimal design standards. There are many reasons why a local preservation commission should oper- ate as professionally as possible,regardless of how long it has been in exist- ence, and this publication is intended to benefit commissions of varying experience. The steps and procedures outlined offer a basic guide for newly established commissions. They also serve as a checklist for seasoned com- missions to measure performance and identify areas of their review process a The same New York City Land- marks Preservation marks Preservation Commission / � approved the glass-roofed conser- Ilaaal • :IaC II.,:C,7 n i _ vancy or garden court that con- I 1 Y`"M nects the Italianate brownstone — ate»- '-- r . -yy -1 �� mansion built in 1852 for f.P.Mor- > ;; I r: /<< I E I gan,Jr,. with the Pierpont Morgan I ` • ni I t . 1 i i t `� ' Library and annex, designed in �� F ' r 1 i� 1906 by Charles F.McKim and in r ,l { am £ 1 arm au. .T,.iILL; I 11.--..u��r4.H y... �... roll I i o.....m.. .m..r.= 1928 by Ben `` I 'ice• ir a"Ns nu 77 , .! 1,`' •1I I ! , i ' i i era�•iva ri�ii� Benjamin Wistar Morris, _ .,. _- `r �� . respectively. The Madison Avenue ` _ �r ,< � '�'" "a w� ; elevation was among the materials * : nas ' I mElt��,10e:neda�.rna. rra. # -■-■ �' +■•; '•� i II'��`� _=� "'ram=gal reviewed by the commission when a F a - r• II. I 14rrelU la Mv161�6me.1L'XilFyai A. :e:: I IIIM _ �n 1ttu making its decision. Architect - r�" $` " "`t r. � a Voorsanger&Associates. , �,.-- e( 9 I) i ges. —^>~ �..-.x ..1 sip-. .n'7. ..- —T, a. t 1 y. ` . y r ] !r y •` f '.' ._ F _� 741% ':...1 --7 ram --' ''.4.1.'"I 1,1, ,1 ,— Mr --- L!"' c`'mill -__:.ii- -a:z____,..., a wig u r-T 1 ----F g r J• ny�-A.,,, ill. x y AI -) Ad -rr FC ItS � -1 is-I I -, = t. a; weing ..ff` YCaty;st p- r 4 tb L '. ff I i.tvI "/ ' t I ?� - -111 .ra �a' t 1 J, v Y E L ;° :: , .y� 4 � ' �R,.1,6-ate 1 ` l.r ,. 1 y ''� ,-� .;-- .' ,t II . .,e'er.'' , ri...�-a— - .> A 'F 1 1 5 I y 1 i 3 II A building-by-building map of a .....-. district is a necessary and easily 1---‘ p--- understood tool for illustrating ch things as building signifi- �'"` �; ,,ce, condition, age, current use,II !1 ip e I }._. y II \,. Ilining, and vacant land. In addi- • -. don to a series of maps, the Whole- �' 1 11,. 1 sale District Historic Area Plan for l i LJL ( ( ii it I . ,6 Indianapolis also includes dia- ( �,' ,` I.I u grams that illustrate the develop- -. f-1_-!1= I able envelope for vacant land in the g district. The plan explains that the - , � ! WHOLESALE diagrams do not indicate appropri- v , DISTRICT ate building shapes but rather, the ! allowable maximum massing and i , t 1 1/1 I .T�_ height of infill construction. z ;� Building Significant. ON,ON ST A7 iOn � n cw,uw,nc II c Q�..b�.. Ire iw 1 ,yr� 1 Il,,,a 0'ii%� III ii'il itd P/r;' �I�i�ll' �' 0 that need improvement. The recommendations take into account the wide discrepancy in resources that are available to commissions. For example, some commissions are assisted by support staff;however, many still operate with little or no staff. In some cities and towns, a sizable design community exists while in others it does not. Despite their differences, most preservation commissions share a desire to improve their expertise and effectiveness. The recommendations that fol- low will help commissions make decisions on requests for new construction but they do not and cannot provide absolute solutions. Every request for new construction in a historic district is site specific, and what was success- ful in one location can be a disaster in another. The challenge for preserva- tion commissions is knowing how to make the judgments that will preserve the distinguishing characteristics of the district while allowing expressions of change and adaptation. • Design Review: The Essential aDocuments Basic operational tools and procedures are essential if commissions are to give a thorough and fair review to applications for new construction and if applicants and the public are to understand the process. These are the same for both new construction and rehabilitation projects and include a survey or inventory, a preservation plan, an ordinance, design guidelines, and ad- ministrative procedures. The Survey:Documenting Your Historic Resources The survey documents the resources in a historic area. Through written descrip- tions and photographs,it records information on all buildings and sites such as their age,style,type,and condition,and on other visual elements such as open space,vacant lots,vistas,street and landscaping patterns,and sidewalk and fence materials and design. The survey identifies the distinguishing characteristics and special qualities of the area and helps determine district boundaries. It forms the basis for the preservation plan and the design guidelines under which rehabilita- tion and new construction projects are reviewed. Survey methodology is important because the results will have both imme- diate 'E application to the documentation of existing conditions and long-term application to proposals for rehabilitation, demolition, the moving of struc- tures,and new construction. The cohesiveness of a historic area depends on many factors including those buildings and sites that individually may lack distinction but collectively support the broader design and cultural features of the area. The method for collecting data should accommodate these fac- tors because the survey results will influence decisions on the alteration or demolition of buildings. For example, surveys based on a ranking system tend to make buildings and sites that are collectively rather than individu- ally important to a district expendable and,therefore,vulnerable to demolition. The preservation commission will refer to the survey forms,visi,al records, and base maps frequently. The information should be available to the pub- lic and will be of particular interest to property owners in the area. The survey information should be regularly updated as well as incorporated into a citywide data base. If a survey did not originally identify the location of vacant,buildable lots in a district, this should be included in an update.For districts in which there is mounting pressure for new construction, a supplementary survey of vacant lots may be advantageous. The Preservation Plan:Defining Your Goals A preservation plan provides a descriptive overview of the historic area and outlines the philosophical goals and the recommendations for its preserva- tion and development. It should be based on an analysis of the survey re- sults, other planning and zoning regulations for such things as traffic and parking,use, density and new development,and input from property owners and residents. The plan need not be lengthy but should include clear, con- cise answers to the following questions. There are two locally designated Colo.as �: districts in Breckenridge, - =�_.,� - , t - I shown in the map on the right. The _ - =...,•rk., ."1 - -; / i onservation district embraces theIn - - _ 1 /t � ore area of the older part of town _T / � d serves as a transitional zone as -"'' r'= V distinguished from the historic dis- 1 rt ,, /' trict which contains the greatest r'v ,,,L�- ram'„„: tom E`,`` % \ u'% CI to,\ �, concentration of historic structures. � � �T. 11 v,.,.4.T� -,� � --- Design review is applied to all - : - 1' --- - _ - projects in both districts but new - :'' "J -,--"`- -=- , ,A› �� \ construction criteria for the conser- _ �� r �� \` vation district is broader than for 1 - ' T/ � �� the historic district as explained in -- _-f LEGEND` \ the Handbook of Design Standards "' -__ Local Historic District Boundary '�—_ I National Register Historic District Boundary for the Historic Conservation Dis- ' :'_ uulll_ Conservation District Boundary tricts. In addition, as shown in the map below, the districts have been subdivided into character areas <r= P „ ItaNSITiON Y_ ' . and design standards have been f ,r = printed in a series of separate t booklets for each area. - ,,__ t L r I i of (I EAST RIDE erc eePt -cii uI KN N,i�tpAlrV A C ! Ilef BPWi H06E TWNsIi ON _ J '^'� ` u rt �rP` I I�fl-Y�,Y-T NN5511� 111 J `- rr^r1 I - �Lv . C 1 . Pi Wri. D 13.43 NTIAL j _ 1u-�mM r IE40fiNINl J t t j1.1 5 Pi IWIN1 _ I I _ SiGFET PERIDENiIM1)/-1 _ E wcvOEN 1 - 11OIXiE � �- 1 �, ''' -STPEIT ~ ' .j BE$IDEN . ., EPak coEorEPCut I " ••_ ` , ( AORTA YMN i -_ li 1 //jt ---f: _ i Irl PAPER PARK CONieeP _..V..— a . •What is significant about the area? • What are the physical characteristics and the special qualities that make it significant? •What do we want to preserve? Determining how to maintain historical and architectural integrity is prob- ably the greatest challenge when defining the goals for a historic area. The complexity of the task increases as the opportunity for new construction in- creases in a district.For example, a goal may be to preserve the image of the , area as unchanged as possible;to preserve the integrity of the district while allowing change; to create a sense of continuity that does not exist at present;or perhaps a combination of these approaches. Defining the goals raises other questions. •Is visual compatibility more important than authentic representation of ` the evolution and change of the district? f •Does imitative architecture distort or enforce the goals for the district? 1 •Does the volume of new development threaten the integrity of the district? 1 •What is the long-term potential for new construction and what will the impact be? i i It is essential that these questions be answered because they give needed di- rection to applicants, designers,and preservation commission members when considering new construction and rehabilitation projects in the area. (-0A plan also should recommend ways to achieve its stated goals. As an ex- ample, the survey of a neighborhood identifies a concentration of significant residential structures ringed by vacant lots and buildings similar in scale but altered and of mixed use. The plan might recommend that the core be des- ignated a historic district with explicit guidelines for the rehabilitation of existing structures, and that the outer area be designated a secondary zone with guidelines that focus on new construction and more lenient rehabilita11 - tion standards for existing buildings. This particular example addresses the edges of historic districts, an important but frequently overlooked issue when historic districts are designated. i Once again, the preservation plan for a historic district should be coordi- II nated with other planning departments and updated periodically not only to reflect changes in the district but also to redefine the goals and objectives if appropriate. The Preservation Ordinance:Your Legal Mandate 1 The local preservation ordinance is the legal mandate for the designation of New construction in a historic dis- historic districts, the establishment of preservation commissions, and the trict is often tied to a request for adoption of procedures for administering the districts. It should include the the demolition of an existing struc- following provisions that are particularly relevant to new construction: ture. Some preservation commis- sions will not consider demolition •approval of new construction,both additions and free-standing buildings; requests unless a replacement • approval of new construction projects that is not contingent on replication project is also presented for review. of specific architectural styles; This line drawing of the one-block • • approval of alterations or demolition of all buildings in a district, Blakemore Conservation Zoning regardless of age; District in Nashville, Tenn.,shows • a demolition clause granting a commission the right to deny demolitions the conceptual design for a low- or, at the least, to delay them; scale office building in a row of • a clause that defines minimum maintenance and demolition by neglect; early 20th century residences that • a requirement that demolition requests include future plans for a site; and have been zoned as a Commercial • a clause that requires archeological investigation at least on historically PUD with a historic overlay, and significant sites if not all new construction sites. adapted for retail and office use. Based on this drawing, the Metro- An ordinance may list detailed criteria and procedures for reviewing applica- politan Historic Zoning Commis- tions including new construction or, after outlining the general purposes sion granted the demolition of a and functions of the district and the commission,it may refer to a separate bungalow which was considered of document or documents detailing guidelines and procedural standards. marginal architectural merit and The latter approach allows greater long-term flexibility primarily because in which was adjacent to a vacant lot. • 1 - TE-E-E t Line drawings are an effective way of illustrating the streetscape and =s building characteristics of a dis- •. t. The facade elevation shows RANGE . GENERAL TYPICAL UPPER FLOOR . WR1.NON MJ ALJGN'1FNI VWDCW 15 50LND,VITH ��LI o ecific commercial streetscape BUI�pNG HEIGhifS. OF CO RNICES. ShV�PE. 5r'IAU DOWS• ii elluride, Colo. I )4. _ _ _ �� n __n .. _ In districts where there is greater ( _ ---,.�i - 1--- 7 ,j variety,isometric block drawings .1-ti :.. I I _..l r:- 1 ? ' EH�J ., .;. ;. : can be useful. The guidelines for •IC Galveston, Tex.,illustrate a�mmlCal FIRST FJIbO MOLDINGS IFIR5T FLOOR 15 KECE55ED `yp• ARE ALIGNED. OPMTRAN PARENC ENTRANCES. block in the historic district and include a conceptual drawing of a new primary structure inserted in the block. Sources:Design Guidelines for , -10--, I Buildings in Telluride by Winter& -,-- -- 4. ,! Company and the Telluride Com- munity;and Design Guidelines for --. lit:\ 'the Historic Districts in Galveston, �,'} "�'=„� ��!'/" Texas, by Ellen Beasley. y �o'l. _ 1 .� , Ill�17 7Viry 14 , 1k; ' ' ' HEW P /VARY Sreuerag : " 51m/LA g 5/44PE /ram ONE Pz/ z. y rNrXANLc ALTHOUGH TWO G/V/NG uN/rs SOL.Ag (1/LLEC7O.P5 zN/oo6A// OI 7 EE7 MA-/N ENT, Y/54cES 57,CEET E 5Er-$A4e/S TYP/lAL most communities the political system makes it difficult to amend an ordi- nance. If separate documents are used, they should be prepared as soon as an ordinance is adopted. The Design Guidelines:Adopting Your Standards Design guidelines are written standards against which applicants should measure planned projects and preservation commissions should review them. The guidelines analyze those qualities and characteristics high- lighted in the survey that should be preserved and restored in rehabilitation • projects as well as respected when new construction is proposed within the area. They provide a common body of information for all participants in the review process. 3 fI For the purpose of reviewing new construction, the guidelines should iden- tify and illustrate the basic design elements,not style-specific, that establish the character of the area. The guidelines also must indicate the relative sig- nificance of these elements. For example,in a historic district composed of late 19th-century brick row houses, all similar in scale and style, the most significant elements may be the basic building volume, street alignment, and material uniformity. The overall homogeneity of the area is more —_)' 8 ti The eight-story Olympic Block was built on a central,highly visible t ` ?%` 1 l - corner in Seattle's Pioneer Square Preservation District and was part .Ii,;,u of a historic rehabilitation tax ° ;; credit project that also included — `" the rehabilitation of the adjoining i' historic structures(foreground). ' iiillaill The project, which went through ma fa •y... multiple-layers of design review on Yti r' r t -}, ; the local and federal levels,gener- s 7.` - i , , t ` 4' 1 - , 4 d 1' j; ated considerable public interest. i~ti y 1 L i ` ` 'Ur ;,i It is a mixed-use project with resi- ..= t r /: 1 a. v y'"NB ';; t. 1, dential usage on the two highest .4} 777 floors.Architect: Hewitt/Olson/ w:s /UU Walker/Daly/Isley. i. ,' _ �. ter '....tF ' 1. it hz.am _. - _ i! LP•' 3 y s `ter, -� + 6u' 1, 7` '.. ,'. f�tY,.Y�* • - -* _1. 1 '/ leer i`�" �� s j ` r 7' '_;•' Alf �s ekt V.ittj_.• ;�••_ . a important than individual buildings. The guidelines for such an area should state clearly that these elements must be the primary consider- ations when designing and reviewing infill projects. New construction guidelines should stress the importance of context,including the relationship of a proposed project to abutting buildings and side streets. If characteristics differ within the district itself,the guidelines should indicate that the design standards also vary from street to street. The guidelines should re- quire an applicant for a new construction project to document the context of the proposed work in submission materials;the preservation commission,in turn, must be familiar with the design standards and any variations within the area. Design guidelines for a historic area should not dictate certain styles for new buildings unless one of the goals for the area is restoration to a specific time period. Most districts,however, exhibit an evolution of architectural styles and cultural trends including the 20th century. Therefore,guidelines that emphasize context and design elements,rather than styles, allow the broadest and most flexible interpretation for new construction. Participation in the development of design guidelines is an instructive exer- cise for a preservation commission because it requires close scrutiny of the area. Someone with expertise in visual analysis must be involved, such as tillan architect who is a member of the commission, a staff person, or a con- sultant.The resulting document should be simple,graphic, and easily un- 13 derstood by the general public as well as design professionals. Commissions and communities with greater resources may wish to use computer graphics to develop their design guidelines or have a scale model built of the historic district. The design guidelines for a historic district should be reassessed on a regular ba- sis. For example,many districts begin as residential areas but uses gradually shift to commercial and office activities. New construction is of a larger scale than originally anticipated and yet the guidelines still apply to a residential district. Commissions participating in the Certified Local Government program through their state historic preservation offices or administering local his- toric districts that also are listed in the National Register of Historic Places and that contain income-producing properties or Community Development Block Grant and Urban Development Action Grant target areas should be familiar with The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Certain projects,primarily additions to historic structures, may require re- view by the local preservation commission, the state historic preservation office,and the National Park Service of the Department of the Interior. • Some state historic preservation offices require that communities in the Certified Local Governments adopt The Standards as part of their design re- view process. The Standards include very broad guidelines for new con- struction but do not address the individual characteristics of local historic districts. Consequently, they should be used in conjunction with,but not in place of, guidelines written for the specific local situation. Design Reviews: Administrative Procedures Both the preservation commission and applicants for new construction projects will benefit from a detailed set of procedures for administering the review process. These include a step-by-step outline of the review process, submission requirements for applications, and a system for maintaining the commission's records. Many commissions distribute brochures to explain the process. Administrative procedures should include a system for public notification through local newspapers and posting commission meetings in the city or town hall. The Design Review Schedule The review process for new construction projects varies from community to community depending on the division of responsibilities among city depart- ments. The schedule for the review procedure and related activities such as building and special use permits,zoning changes, and the appeals process should be outlined. For each phase of the review process, the applicant should be informed of the department to which application is made, the de- cisions and actions to be expected at each level, and the time frame. If some decisions are made by staff, this should be explained. ii7 10 The Submission Requirements Commissions must remember that their decisions will be based entirely on what is presented verbally and graphirally by applicants and that the submission pro- pcedure must require enough information to make fair decisions. The require- ments should be tailored to the design resources available in a community as well as the scope of specific projects. For example,a scale model may not be a re- alistic requirement in a town with no design professionals nor would one be nec- essary for minor rear-lot buildings. The recommended minimum submission requirements for new construction projects are: •written specifications including measurements; •photographs of the site and its surroundings including side streets; •facade elevations; •primary street facade elevation(s)superimposed to scale on a photograph of the streetscape; •material samples including a sample wall on location;and • color samples if this is a design review responsibility. Ideally, submission requirements for new construction in historic areas also should include: • a complete set of plans and elevations; • scaled drawings including street elevations that show the proposed struc- ture in context and all facing streets; and • a scale model in accurate colors showing the proposed building in context. -. The Visual Laboratory of the Historic Preservation Program at the University of Vermont assists 40 ♦ • government agencies,preservation commissions, and citizen groups in assessing the visual effect of pro- .-- -_ posed projects through the use of -4,_ (' accurately scaled simulations of - landscapes,rural villages, and even portions of the cities. In the ex- '. = e ; ample shown,planners and citi- ` zees in the Village of Williston, Vt., '';x-- '�i•i�-a=*�,. � �, '- -_ were able to visualize the impact of � ti a commercial development on the town's rural setting. .s - 11 — -4 I i• — f -�t-7F, [ , igg New construction projects in the �- . :,..f ' "''y � �' 4 historic setting may have to satisfym. ' w - - "�{-` i� F s more than one set of design star- -�. - , ; :,• � 1.; _*f 4-.1 .t-ds. The twelve houses and "'` i r t .�� r am - �,a J•, a .s „i nityBuilding built by the _using Authority of the City of t• ' • ' �� Yuma(Ariz.)and financed by HUD a through the Low-Rent Public Hous- _-.7 •., 1 ., igl - ingProgram,are located in the r.:,. ,: , c,' -- �- , �` Century Heights Conservancy Resi- - : .Z `. ` ' dential Historic District,a portion ' 7,. r c- z,r,- = s 1+ of which is also listed in the Na- , ,1 Y .�, .;_ tional Register. The project had to '. `` { ` `} meet the design standards of both -' `" `�t • the local district and HUD which, - ` ; �. _ ,,--. among other things, will not allow porches on public housing projects. - The review process resulted in the •.�Y::, �", PLAYGROUND *i ;r'x fii: approval of a bungalow house type . r _ :%j s rather than the adobe design that au �:.?.ii• _ 4J '`u ....•...""° • - -� N! ; - • YS. �'`G-.}~:tip was originally proposed and the in- •°"r.°:n-.,•:,Y: :'••":•"��"'•""""'•""••" ! a _ i W elusion of"porchettes"on the front ygilii? <: facades. Uniform setbacks and ❑ PARKING < W J 0 front-street orientation for the '< :Swam.. .--1 I . IIMI I I ; I o houses, as seen in the final site = •�!: •-; '-ii IWOM UMMO■...........■SMUN I M plan, were other changes that � 'Tall evolved during the review process. The complexreceived an Award ofe:.: : � , s �. , e, Merit from the National Association - : ■'•: ousinp and Redevelopment Offi- �� -I - " I- - S.Architect HPL Architects. \ /// )\) In communities where the resources exist, commissions should make the scale model of a district or computer graphics capability available to appli- 1 cants. For example,if a commission has a scale model of a district that is large enough to make judgments and comparisons,the applicant would need to make a model only of the proposed building. Many commissions require a preapplication workshop or meeting with ap- plicants who are proposing new construction projects. The project design is discussed on a conceptual level as are relevant planning and zoning require- ments. The applicant may display working drawings at this time. The pre- application workshop can help reduce confrontations that may occur at a formal review meeting when an applicant presents final drawings that the commission has never seen and that do not meet the guidelines. Preservation commission members always should study the site of a new construction project before any discussion. Some commissions make on- site visits to such projects with or without the applicants. It should be clear to all participants that no decisions are made during either preapplication workshops or on-site visits. The discussions in both instances should be documented. Pi Record Keeping A well-organized system for keeping records and filing applications is im- portant to the smooth administration of a commission and directly influ- ences its ability to enforce decisions. Minutes should be taken at all meetings which, ideally, also should be taped. Descriptions of decisions should be clear and comprehensive. Approvals, denials and alterations as well as the date and the initials of the chairperson or designated authority, should be recorded on drawings and other visual materials. Each applica- • tion and related drawings should have a separate file folder. Before submitting materials, the applicant should understand what will be kept for the permanent files of the preservation commission and what will be returned upon completion of the project. An applicant should be able to supply duplicate copies of all the materials listed except a scale model which usually is returned. Design Review: Conducting the Meeting A thorough review of new construction applications largely depends on how commission meetings are conducted. Commission members should be businesslike,focused and attentive, and the commission as a group must understand its role as reviewer. Some commissions approve or deny projects without offering specific design suggestions whereas other commis- sions do. Most commissions are required to list their reasons for denying applications. Commissions should limit their discussion to those aspects of the project for which they are responsible and leave other issues of zoning and planning to the appropriate departments. It is important for the preservation commission to remember that the re- view process involves people and personalities as well as buildings. First and foremost, the commission represents a larger client—the public. As such,its primary responsibility is to make decisions that support and main- tain the goals and the standards of the historic area. The list of participants in the review process can include commission members, design profession- als,property owners, neighbors,builders, contractors, developers,preserva- tion organizations, support staff, elected officials, lawyers, and others. Viewpoints undoubtedly will differ,but in most instances, all participants are eager to reach a decision that is acceptable to everyone. The key is to keep communication lines open and leave room for negotiation. Applicants should know what is expected of them in their presentations. At the conclusion of the application reN,iew, all participants should under- stand the decision that has been made and the next step whether it be the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, a building permit, or a request for design modifications. To ensure a thorough and orderly design review meeting,commissions should ask three broad questions that will guide them through any application for new construction: 1 1 Commissions often review projects ;.p .,.. �v. �- that reflect a shift in use and scale . ```� -,.._.. E. -r `tom" 77-r ..g:r -.-- • - - •- l in an area. The Providence His- *` -' ;a--m ,�. �v„ 11v,; toric District Commission re- , s ., _ .. 3� ,1 ,,. .• = t . I. i�' �s �� —viewed two projects proposed by f ` ' t�q•t` Aa, •fig h7P'4:Q ' y 1 1 i--- Jar-c om `7w .fe 4k, Cr 3rown University:a residential ,', 1Y�i;-;;r "'.`'�y 0.,j 4, 'w�, t,.' complex and a parking deck. Each '7t ; t , ,,., ��'� �, le, ofthe proposed projects covered a r " if,r a .b -``'• PreZ: fK city block in the College Hill His- :} 'IA'V � Sg+t ' � /� • -t ;� torlc District. The parkingdeck \ Npr.. a!ti r O� .� i j r� Y s t Ec. 1j►� �` . 41 which is visible between the treesi. a �—�\ c' ' u � ` � on the right of the photograph, ��• i - a, ',-y%`. tg,t4, jf ''-, , was built on a block that was, at � N, ' ti jay ,,'r�- - ' one time,a tennis court and then �? fa 6,-��r �;p: r?��ie+:at+✓•' a ' ti • a surface parking lot. As part of s a k,4 -,.- '�` �t'�,, \ d • the review process, the university '' = ;r,� - ., �• -�: accepted a deed restriction with _�`i: ', ``'.'R '-y gn',r "'}4-_ As; r R the city that does not permit build- =`-"; , -"", 4 ' t' `.,Y'% ,... .'- /.. mg additional stories to the strut- • ' ' • 'j .`- :.`1r r�+ - {'P p 4 7 ture. The residential com lex �- It t� I IW. - °-. 4-}" � i post-dates the parking deck. ,,_ 1 t0. jr,;: -,- ,ls r#. . ..., The bay windows, intersecting � � I -' • "�-,�- gable roofs, and yard space were q _ 6 �s f-,, , ,. I L ',� -4 T .-_ designed to suggest row housing - T -.-{., - L_ ; _ ~'�• y •. 3v'-,.+ i.y 4- -� -a - 't::5k - mow. .� and to complement the detached :Ir ' l`� =z .-•"" ' r �`-'` single fnmily housing in the 3 "' ' c" �' ' neighborhood, an example of r`- r-- �` -: ' which is in the background. An 1 i id # ;-'a interior courtyard provides public t` - i . _ ,pace for the complex. Architect: ,, I = _ l arkingdeck:Seymour Gage Asso- m [ ' x dates. Architect:residential com- - '-" '`R f �i-- plea Davis,Brody&Associates. �' 4 - - � . , ff Does Everyone Understand the Application? Before the commission responds to an applicant's presentation of a proposed project,all aspects of the application should be clear to everyone. The requi- site visual and written materials should be prepared properly and provide enough information to determine the impact of the project on the district. There should be a consensus on the definition of architectural, technical and planning terms, and adjectives such as "compatible," "contextual,"and "appropriate." 14 Commission members frequently complain that a finished new construc- tion project looks nothing like what was expected. In many such cases, project files and documents reveal that design details were either unclear or unspecified. The commission should not hesitate to table or deny an appli- cation and request additional materials if it lacks sufficient information to make a decision. On occasion, commissioners may suspect that the appli- cant has deliberately obscured the intended design or materials. For ex- ample, a material sample may be"similar but not identical to the actual material" to be used. In such cases, the commission should request clarifi- • cation even if it means delaying a decision. Does the Application Meet the Design Guidelines? To judge whether an application meets the design guidelines for the district, commission members must determine if the project supports and maintains the stated goals of the district and respects the design elements that charac- terize the district. The commission should be sure that the appropriate de- partments have reviewed the project for compliance with all other zoning requirements such as geological and flood plain hazard areas, solar air rights, • and off-street parking. Finally, the commission should evaluate the long- term effect of the project on the district. Having determined that the proposed project fits the overall goals of the dis- trict, the commission should evaluate the project in terms of the larger de- sign features such as scale,massing and height,followed by a look at the details. Commissions often focus on the details first,losing sight of the larger issues.This frequently reflects inadequate presentation materials that make it easier to visualize the details of a project than to visualise the mass- ing or scale. Attention to details later in the review,however, should not be overlooked:poor detailing and poor quality materials can compromise an otherwise well-designed building as many preservation commissions and communities have learned. y. This single-family, three-bedroom • residence is clearly a new structure . but maintains the scale and mass- ing of the adjoining primary struc- • fi .�, tares in the Old Northside Historic r .� yet . District in Indianapolis. Architect - ...+ Woollen,Molzan and Partners. *;' N e'`' ' N.ti!r 3 , aid E s s it ` f 2 • sip ?Jo ` ., 100 _ El This sample design review checklist is based on Building with Nantucket in Mind: Guide- SITE PLANNING ROOF lines for Protecting the Historic Architecture and Landscape of Siting of the Building: Shape(gable, lean-to, etc.) Nantucket Island. Use of a Setback Pitch checklist will ensure that the Facade width Overhang commission considers all the im- Spacing between buildings Dormers portant design elements that dis- Skylight tinguish the district in its review Delineation of street space: Chimneys of new construction proposals. Creation of continuous Checklists should be prepared street edge for each historic district because Separation of public, semi- WINDOWS public, and private areas these design elements vary. A Fences Type(double-hung,case- checklist will help commission ment,etc.) members determine if the new Garage placement Shape and proportion structure or development will Rhythm and balance contribute to and enhance the Landscape plantings Blinds/shutters long-term goals of the historic district. Site Improvements: Walkways DOORWAYS Driveways Retaining walls Placement and orientation Type(paneled, etc.) BULK,PROPORTION and SCALE(building size) EXTERIOR ARCHITEC- TURAL ELEMENTS Height Facade proportions Door platforms and steps Scale Porches � Exterior stairs and decks ! ) Roofwalks and platforms MASSING(building shape) Mass of main portion: MATERIALS Form Roof shape Wall surfaces Orientation Foundation Roof Additions: Placement Form TRIM and MISCELLANEOUS Bulk DETAILS Trim Gutters and leaders Louvres,vents, etc. House lights Public utilities COLORS 1 j To organize and simplify the review of new construction applications, corn- missions may want to develop a checklist of the design elements to be con- sidered and as specified in the guidelines. The checklist also should begin with the broader design features such as scale,massing and height, and then cover the details such as materials, openings and ornamentation. Following the applicant's presentation and the general discussion,the commission can study each element to determine whether or not it meets the guidelines. Using this method,the commission is more likely to base its evaluation of the project on the design standards than on personal opinions. Commission members and applicants alike can distinguish more easily between the design elements for which there is approval and disapproval. Items on the checklist should not be ranked or given quantitative values; they should be used to facilitate the review process and clarify decisions. Occasions will arise when commissions simply should deny a request be- cause it is obvious that the applicant or designer does not understand the district and that the proposed design will never meet the standards even with modifications. Too often, commissions try to redesign such projects, frequently with disastrous results. Instead, commissions should say"no" and encourage the applicant to start anew. Preapplication workshops will not eliminate these situations entirely but they will reduce them. What Is the Decision and Does Everyone Understand It? No application review should conclude until everyone understands the deci- sion as it relates to the design guidelines. Was the application approved as presented, approved with modifications, or denied? The commission should identify and describe any modifications so that the applicant understands which design elements to rework for the next review. If the commission de- nies a proposal,it should explain the appeals process to the applicant. Once the commission gives final approval to the design,it should outline subsequent steps in the review process to the applicant such as obtaining a building permit. The applicant should understand that any change in the approved design during construction must be presented to the commission. Any enforcement requirements should be stated clearly such as a time limi- tation on a building permit or when construction must begin. Finally, the drawings,plans, and other submission materials must be dated, initialed, and stamped with the decision. If there is a series of plans for a project, items that are not approved also should be stamped and filed to avoid confusion. • Design Review: Maintaining Professional Standards The successful review of any project by a preservation commission depends on several factors. In addition to having the basic set of operational tools and procedures in place, commission members must do their homework. Each member should review the survey, ordinance, guidelines, and proce- dures regularly. The commission should hold workshops to review deci- sions and policies, and to evaluate its performance. The discussions should include questions such as: 1. Do property owners,residents and the commission still agree on goals for • the district as expressed in the plan or should these goals be revised? 2. Do all commission members understand the responsibilities of the commission or are they confusing them with those of the planning com- mission or the zoning board? 3. Do the guidelines cover new or anticipated types of projects such as 1 the construction of secondary structures as rental units, the development of buildings for mixed uses, or the relocation of historic buildings on va- cant lots in the district? • 4. What are the recurring problems and how can they be resolved? For example, the massing of new buildings may be out of scale with the exist- ing structures but politically, down-zoning is not an option. One solution may be to prepare more specific guidelines for treating the street level of new buildings. In another case, it may be necessary to work with other commissions and boards to resolve a conflict between present zoning and design and preservation objectives. As an example, matching the scale of 19th-century residences with the single-family zoning designation in a neighborhood may inhibit new construction or lead to poorly scaled single-family dwellings. If well-designed duplexes are more feasible both economically and architecturally, the commission may decide to sched- ule a meeting with the appropriate city and residential groups to outline the options. As stated previously, operational tools and procedures may need to be re- fined, updated or even revised to accommodate changes in the district. In fact, commissions should view this as standard professional practice. Out- dated survey information and base maps that do not reflect improved build- ing conditions,additional vacant lots, or new construction not only can i. cause confusion when reviewing applications but also can result in poor de- cisions. If there are any procedural changes, the materials that are given to applicants should be revised and reprinted immediately. Clear and current documents and procedures will aid both designers and applicants and en- courage better design quality. In addition to regular assessments of their decisions and operation,preserva- tion commissions should define their role as public educator, a role that most commissions must assume. A commission can introduce many pro- grams depending, of course, on the resources available. These can range , '• from scheduling a small workshop to discuss a particularly difficult issue , 18 �7r « S- Buildingsthatthreatened are in `' - , ' �. "' their oria nay'location can be an- ther solution to infill development t gh t F -, t r° in a historic district. Most commis- ,F,,.�-..-.- � ��_ �1 �-' �, - -� � rb „gip . 4 sions apply the same design stan- 1,. , "` '`� dards to move-in buildings as to r 1- -; , ' t - ; •,, new construction in terms of their M .10 -- �, • relationship to the surrounding " . • • {` ; i it Li 3 ;r .lb area. The four-square house in the f_ ii.1 °;"t- ,` "" 7"i foreground was moved from the --`gar _ , site of a proposed university sports " •'-• arena to the Sherman Hill Historic , '4. :',1i-st " �A . District in Des Moines,Iowa. Built A.- r.4 ' =.-_:l 13 r- as a duplex but converted to a tri- `��'� t 3 `� "'�"" ; plex, the house was reverted to a +.� c ` s 1 + , AA- + , - rK, duplex when moved and is now `, ` `'' `t,,,.r ru v sue' ` - owner-occupied. g _, �• a 1. s _ i- a.,.Jw.,, -wu'""i`:? z.r -5G -V err ' .,�"�... ...,„ . with property owners in a district to planning a one-day, citywide confer- ence with speakers. Publications are essential and can be anything from printed design guidelines to simple xeroxed sheets that explain the function of the commission. The cost of the program is not important—what is im- portant is communicating with the public. Preservation commissions may find it both educational and reassuring to participate in statewide or regional workshops involving other local preser- vation commissions. These keep commissioners current on issues affecting local historic districts and build networks to exchange ideas. Many state historic preservation offices require that communities participating in the CLG program send representatives to such meetings. Lasting Decisions Workshops,preapplication discussions, design guidelines, and checklists of design elements, are techniques that contribute to the ability of a local pres- ervation commission to review applications for new construction projects in historic districts with confidence. It is most important for commission members to know the district and the characteristics that distinguish it as well as to define its long-term goals. Without an understanding and a con- sensus about these basic considerations,it is impossible for any preservation commission to deal properly with requests for new construction. In addition, a solid set of operational procedures is essential to a fair and or- derly decision-making process. Open communication and continuing edu- cation are necessary ingredients not only with the public and applicants but also among commission members. In smaller communities and those with limited resources, commission members themselves may have to initiate dOand prepare many,if not all, of their programs and materials. '11:i. The North Carolina Medical Soci- , ety requested demolition of the _ •�� ,�� building on the left located in the _ �: , p Oakwood Historic District in Ra- - r Y ! weigh and proposed planting the ,.,,4: — -` •� ;7) '` y, .: }ti .i vacant lot with trees. The Historic ,.'- .. rt` s' �" :•' 1, '`• • District Commission's denial of the _ti ` "f• •*r ; ° - :. - request has placed a one-year l a• b : <�,• y ,o;. demolition delay on the house. •�' I The infill project on the right was 1 - E ' •�"i -�, ;,' ilit7,fi'Atiria-- 4" b• built in 1985 for offices by the �w 4 = North Carolina Beer Wholesalers t � Jo' 1 and was designed to be compatible a with the residential surroundings . _ Y"-- r�, °" 1 j j- t tga9v10 ; , including its next door neighbor. - _ -w ------ -' ,-.. z,._ The Governor's Mansion is directly .. - - ,.-t .,,,„� .� Y : ,X ,�4 r x - ,. 1 across the street from the build- . -• T-4 ` r gm 1- mgs. Architect of the Infill prof- o °=: 7 � �, �Y „1,o- yak. s - .s --- -tr, ect:Clearscapes Architecture PA. a 4 ;,.--:�xa v ':. `` - o _yes t I Even when all the tools are in place,reviewing applications for new con ii - struction projects in historic districts is seldom easy. They are site specific a and project unique:no two projects are alike, and rarely, if ever,is there one s clear-cut solution. When reviewing new construction projects, a preserva- tion commission should remember that it is the impact of the design on the historic surroundings that should be measured first,followed by an evalua tion of the individual structure. Equally important, a commission should a examine each decision within the context of the long-term goals for the dis- trict as a whole because, once built, the decisions of a preservation commis- )1 sion become an integral,visible, and lasting presence in the historic district. Acknowledgements 1 This publication was written and revised by Ellen Beasley,preservation con- sultant. The public design review process and the design of new buildings for historic settings have been among her concentrated areas of study and writings since the late 1970s. Based in Houston,Tex.,Ms.Beasley received a Loeb Fellowship at the Harvard Graduate School of Design and a Rome Prize in Urban Design at the American Academy in Rome. • Elements of the handbook were developed originally for a class that was organized by the author and taught jointly with Nore V.Winter,urban de- signer. Dwayne Jones,preservation planner of the Texas Historical Com- mission,was particularly helpful in preparing the revision. The author also wishes to acknowledge collectively all the people who provided illustrations for the revision. The illustration and architectural credits recognize only some of the groups and individuals who have been in- volved in the building and publication projects that are represented in this booklet. 20 • Select Bibliography Design and Development:Infill Housing Compatible with Historic Neigh- borhoods.Information Series No.41. Ellen Beasley. Washington,D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation. 1988,reprinted 1992. The publi- cation describes the preconstruction phase of the infill process and the vari- ous participants in a multi-layer design review process that includes a local preservation commission and a neighborhood association. The Edgefield Historic District in Nashville,Tenn., serves as a case study. Available for $5.00 from: Information Series,National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue,N.W.,Washington,D.C. 20036. (202) 673-4189. A Handbook on Historic Preservation Law. Christopher J.Duerksen, ed. Washington,D.C.:The Conservation Foundation and the National Center for Preservation Law. 1983. The chapter on"Local Preservation Law:Re- viewing Applications for Demolition,Alteration or New Construction," will be of particular interest to commissions. Also includes "Recom- mended Model Provisions for a Preservation Ordinance,"with annotations by Stephen N.Dennis as Appendix A. Available for$30 plus$2.00 shipping and handling from: The World Wildlife Fund, Publications Handling De- partment,P.O.Box 4866,Hampden Post Office,Baltimore,Md. 21211. (410)516-6951. Saving Place:A Guide and Report Card for Protecting Community Charac- ter. Philip B.Herr. Boston:National Trust for Historic Preservation, North- east Regional Office. 1991. The booklet is designed to help citizens of small and rural towns to identify and protect the characteristics that distin- guish their communities. New development is placed within the context of growth management issues. Available for$14.95 plus$2.00 shipping from the National Trust for Historic Preservation,Northeast Regional Office, 7 Faneuil Hall Marketplace, 5th Floor,Boston,Mass. 02109. (617)523-0885. A Design Primer for Cities and Towns. Anne Mackin and Alex Krieger. Boston:Massachusetts Council on the Arts and Humanities. 1989. The book serves as a guide for decision makers,both citizens and professionals, in the public design and planning processes. The Primer explains the impli- cations of design decisions and how various aspects of design affect plan- ning and development. Although written for Massachusetts,it is applicable to communities everywhere. Available for$15.00 from the Massachusetts Municipal Association,60 Temple Place,Boston,Mass. 02111. Old and New Architecture:Design Relationship. National Trust for His- toric Preservation, ed. Washington,D.C.:Preservation Press. 1980. This book was one of the first major publications to address the issue of new de- sign in the historic context. The series of essays reflect a range of opinions and while some of the material may be dated,the basic issues remain the same. The book is out of print but is available in many libraries. Vacant Lots. Carol Willis and Rosalie Genervo, eds. New York:Princeton- : Architectural Press and The Architectural League of New York. 1989. Ar- chitects were invited to design infill housing for ten sites in older,mostly small-scale neighborhoods in New York. The published results, Vacant Lots, can serve as a textbook for anyone interested in infill design because sethe examples illustrate a range of solutions for each site and test the reader's ability to read and interpret plans and elevations. Available for$24.95 plus $3.00 shipping(add 8.25 percent sales tax for New York residents)from Princeton Architectural Press,37 East 7th Street, New York,N.Y., 10003. Good Neighbors:Building Next to History. Colorado Historical Society. Denver:Colorado Historical Society. 1980. A step-by-step guide to help a community identify and define its distinguishing characteristics and write a set of design guidelines. Five Colorado towns serve as examples but the pro- cess is applicable anywhere. Although printed in 1980, the publication re- • mains one of the best on the subject. Available for$4.95 plus$3.00 for shipping and handling from the Colorado Historical Society, Museum Store, 1300 Broadway,Denver, Colo. 80203. Call(303)866-4993 for information and prices on bulk orders. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Washington,D.C.: U.S.Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division. Revised 1990. The Standards include the Secretary's guidelines for new construction with an emphasis on additions to historic buildings. The Pres- ervation Assistance Division also publishes a series of Preservation Briefs including No. 14,New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings:Preserva- tion Concerns. Both publications are available through the Superintendent of Documents,U.S. Government Printing Office,Washington,D.C.20402. The Standards is GPO stock number 024-005-01061-1, $2.00 per copy; Brief No. 14 is GPO stock number 024-005-01011-4, $1.00 per copy. Three national magazines,Architecture,Architectural Record, and PIA (Progressive Architecture),regularly publish articles featuring new design in the historic and/or urban context as well as annual preservation issues. Many libraries subscribe to at least one if not all three magazines. Organizational Resources The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions is a membership orga- nization that provides information regarding historic preservation law,local ordinances, design review, and local preservation planning. It maintains a speakers'bureau and publishes the periodic Alliance Newsletter. For fur- ther information contact: The National Affiance of Preservation Commis- sions,Hall of the States,/11W1 North Capitol Street,N.W., Suite 332, Washington,D.C. 20001. The National Center for Preservation Law maintains an active file of legal issues pertaining to historic preservation,much of which relates to the de- sign review process. The Center interprets specific court cases and other subjects in a series of Updates that are available through subscription. For further information contact: The National Center for Preservation Law, 1333 Connecticut Avenue,NT.W., Suite 300,Washington,D.C. 20036. (202)338-0392. • The National Trust for Historic Preservation has seven regional and field of- fices that provide services to state and local organizations and individuals. These services cover all preservation activities including field visits, advi- sory assistance, conferences, and special projects on issues of particular con- cern to each region. The offices are listed on the back cover of this booklet. The National Trust's Department of Law and Public Policy provides educa- tion and advice on preservation law and historic districts,zoning,monitor- ing of preservation litigation, and other preservation issues. For further information contact the appropriate National Trust regional office. The Preservation Assistance Division of the National Park Service conducts a variety of activities to guide governmental agencies and the general public in historic preservation project work. The office is responsible for develop- ing and disseminating technical information about specific preservation and rehabilitation problems as well as interpreting The Secretary's Standards. For further information including a catalogue of their publications, contact: The Preservation Assistance Division,Technical Preservation Services, P.O. Box 37127,Washington,D.C. 20013-7127. (202)343-9578. State Historic Preservation Offices(SHPOs)administer a variety of programs including the National Register program at the state level, state and federal grants programs, and the Certified Local Government program that provides assistance in the establishment and training of local preservation commis- sions. The SHPOs conduct regular workshops for CLGs as well as maintain a series of publications and audiovisual materials that are available to CLGs. For further information, contact:National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers at(202)624-5465, the CLG Program at the National Park Service at(202)343-9505, or the National Trust regional offices. - `�« _ - j- ,,? Secondary structures are among L s; the types of new construction -�, ��.. ,/ _ projects reviewed by preservation •-r 4� commissions. The "Design Services Wit_ z —,,,•• Bank"offered by the Bozeman _`, --x •. (Mont.)historic Preservation Board _ 1l�� • - %' ;; _ assisted the owners of this 1889 �,� sad ,� house in desiring the detached ga- .t $`" r rage/workshop,shown on the left. F T - The new building and driveway - .,s encroach upon the required 8-foot - t ' � R i 1 side yard setback but the review . r f 4 ;, (0 1: _i - board can grant such zoning devia- _ ' f. .. Ct11I 1 ,. 1.i tions providing in fill structures or - I .- - -,� : - it - additions are considered reflective ' -_ ,� r; -;,._. `-- T-'ffi ' — _, of the design fabric of the neighbor- ,: -- - "s„,4,.,# hood.Architect Donald J. 4# -` .. s - - McLaughlin. MD Support for the National Trust is provided in part by matching grants from the U.S.Department of the Interior, National Park Service,under provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The opinions expressed :1 in this publication are not necessarily those of the U.S.Department of the Interior. :‘ IC IN THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION NETWORK• The Preservation Forum of the National Trust is a membership program for professionals and organizations. The benefits and privileges of membership include subscriptions to Historic Preservation Forum,Historic Preserva- tion magazine,Historic Preservation News,participation in financial/insurance assistance programs, technical ad- vice, and substantial discounts on professional conferences and educational publications. New Information booklets I are available free upon request. 1. To join, send$75 annual dues to: Preservation Forum National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Avenue,N.W. Washington,D.C. 20036 (202)673-4296 Offices of the National Trust for Historic Preservation National Headquarters Northeast Office Texas/New Mexico Field Office 1785 Massachusetts Avenue,N.W. Seven Faneuil Hall Marketplace,5th Floor 500 Main Street,Suite 606 Washington,D.C. 20036 Boston,Mass. 02109 Fort Worth,Tex. 76102 (202)673-4296 (617)523-0885 (817)332-4398 (Connecticut,Maine,Massachusetts,New (New Mexico,Texas) Mid-Atlantic Office Hampshire,New York,Rhode Island,Vermont) Cliveden,6401 Germantown Ave. Western Office iladelphia,Pa. 19144 Southern Office One Sutter Street,Suite 707 15)438-2886 William Aiken House San Francisco,Calif. 94104 sey, e,District of Columbia,Maryland,New 456 King Street (415)956-0610 . rsey,Pennsylvania,Puerto Rico,Virginia,Vir- Charleston,S.C. 29403 (Alaska,Arizona,California,Guam,Hawaii, gin Islands,West Virginia) (803)722-8552 Idaho,Micronesia,Nevada,Oregon,Utah,Wash- (Alabama,Arkansas,Florida,Georgia,Kentucky, ington) Midwest Office Louisiana,Mississippi,North Carolina,South 53 West Jackson Blvd.,Suite 1135 Carolina,Tennessee) Chicago,Ill. 60604 (312)939-5547 Mountains/Plains Office (Illinois,Indiana,Iowa,Michigan,Minnesota, 511 16th Street,Suite 700 Copyright©1992 Missouri,Ohio,Wisconsin) Denver,Colo. 80202 National Trust for Historic Preservation (303)623-1504 (Colorado,Kansas,Montana,Nebraska,North Dakota,Oklahoma,South Dakota,Wyoming) 24 ». b - t a p - l a'' )w,-i , W-_..-i° , �'.3_ ssf ;t � fir' .r r-. -vz i. , 8y.-. ` T.. ..„ i �t - , 4 _.a Ste- - yam v f i: _.4- �c N`H t[i1! I s ,i"k ?- i '.7-,.. ?`..-- + .- ley. .. . .r,-; .S ,' +�v.'y '�� r a{ - y S.�'Y1 .ba f`.�Agr cy' Y `s..++,.�r�ny' a +�1'"'r.< �� :-t . ,..?- Y.. ;? �..;'."1s,. .Ma'y-y,t -3 `' '=: i+� ; "tW "�'''ii. t -•-Fs . R...-PiA'r't.'5 i�•;, --. p. • Information Series No. 62, 1992 - RED' WfNG NEW CONS'I'RUC 11ON The design of new construction in a historic context is a subject that so- licits passionate opinions from everybody—architects,neighborhood activists, developers,property owners, even the supposed cash l observer. Consequently,it is not surprising that new construction projects in locally designated historic districts continue to be among the liveliest, and most challenging applications that preservation commissions review. Reviewing New Construction Projects in Historic Areas: Procedures for Local Preservation Commissions was first published in 1986 by the North- east Regional Office of the National Trust. The purpose remains the same: to encourage responsible,rational decisions by providing preservation com- 1010 missions an outline of the basic documents and procedures that are essen- tial to the public design review process of new construction projects in historic districts. - In 1986, there were an estimated 1,200 locally designated historic districts in the United States; six years later, that number has grown beyond 1,800. The same six year period has seen a gradual decline in the number of new construction projects in historic districts which reflects the national eco- nomic climate.This does not mean,however,that preservation commis- sions, especially those that may be reviewing new construction projects for the first time, are finding these decisions any less difficult or complicated. In addition to a new set of illustrations,there are minor variations worth noting between the 1986 and the 1992 versions of Reviewing New Con- struction Projects. The 1992 version encourages communities to revise the basic documents, i.e., surveys,preservation plans, design guidelines, and or- dinances, that govern historic districts. Many locally designated districts are entering their second, third,perhaps even fourth stage of development but the documents are woefully outdated and do not reflect the districts as they now exist. The resources that are available to preservation commissions have grown and/or strengthened considerably. The Certified Local Government pro- gram(CLG)is one example of an organizational resource that has impacted the establishment and operation of preservation commissions in many states. Technological resources such as the video taping of an entire dis- OWtrict, computer imaging, or computer mapping systems are being used or at least considered by a greater number of preservation commissions. ��C:_a:I-if:� -_ ..-_ _ 1or ! _1_��,-o re e?.__y_.cr-' 'I • mi • T Preservation commissions review a T«, - ran e ofdesign '�._ r g solutions for new ' construction r� _ems h t-•,., t y projects in historic ► a ,r " 'r:= ;; settings. The New York City , _: ~" • �` 4 p `"- ``• t.• • Landmarks a New ,a,...- - _ __-_- -_;_ s-•a;•z. ,,,t r Preservation Commis- tA_p•-•,`,.fit------'>_`-,--, F? __ _ -il r -•' %w:.:' ' • sion approved the reconstruction -- > _.. _ ={-z.- ,-.:_ {.;;, •4. : i77, - rt1' �:�;' :::- -t Onstructlon Of _ , < _% .,sr.2 �"f•a scr '�sins. : •A a row house at 27 Tompkins Place s• - - ;' ' � r , in the Cobble Hill Historic --= •' �_' t $r' s ric District r ay�I F `<_ ..TM" �zE=E o- in Brooklyn The original structure •n.44 A ' zEMI = t z _..:• •: -..`;c . was destroyed by fire and reconstruct ;V - -r' - _-L- _- ,, • 6 ' Lion was considered the best solution { _ r - ti� E �'•_ '�' to maintaining the continuity Of the ` - - � `" Z-�_ < �i . .- i -a• 1 r M -- streetscape. The new structure is a ,.+� .I.:a r' _ . __'':'• '. E-'. - - 1 �J twofamily condominium. Architect �� .�_' _�_• • i --,�_ T"�E DiFiore Giacobbe - .+-•� = _ - . _ --- I - `� Associates. - •=i. ..' _ -- rye "'! - V y�'4,-•.;:ti .. S. - Z, _t ��( —i r s r‘ •avy — a= 1- — _ i x a . 13 Wil IL _ -_ ' These developments as well as other factors suggest that the 1990s will be progressively active and challenging years for preservation commissions in their capacity as reviewers of new design in historic districts. There will be a greater melding and coordination of the oftentimes overlapping if not con- flicting functions of preservation commissions and other municipal plan- ning and zoning boards. This will expedite the application and review process,make it more understandable to the public, and hopefully,relieve many preservation commissions of being held solely accountable for new construction decisions in their communities. Although the number of districts will continue to grow, albeit at a slower pace, organized opposition by properr rights groups to both the designation of additional districts and the administration of existing districts is also likely to grow. This could discourage new construction in those districts that are perceived as being unstable or threatened, or inhibit commissions from regulating anything beyond minimal design standards. There are many reasons why a local preservation commission should oper- ate as professionally as possible, regardless of how long it has been in exist- ence, and this publication is intended to benefit commissions of varying experience. The steps and procedures outlined offer a basic guide for newly established commissions. They also serve as a checklist for seasoned com- missions to measure performance and identify areas of their review process • The same New York City Land- ' �= marks s Preservation Commission —� J� ``"`-''' - — — — approved the glass-roofed conser- i�1 ��1 K �Is"a.4�1.'a�T s -- � c:� '�� vancy or garden court that con- i-_ .. r nects the Italianate brownstone ' � $f �j; mansion built in 1852 for I.P.Mor- '7 ' '_ j gran, fr., with the Pierpont Morgan _ Library, annex, desired inand { ' �� F y- I. .I� �- ; - 1906 by Charles F.McKim and in -K` f-x s a -� `i I ' I 1 I I-' , , :l : _ { '1 1928 by Benjamin llTistarMorris, �,� respectively. The Madison Avenue Y 31 c�a � f }�I y ! 1 I I �� rm? 7!.f elevation was among the materials a 9� "h'a "' =: � - t-` ' . reviewed ��>: ••� �� -. � � � � i i , , ,,.�+Y----`" :-L,��.�y� by the commission when .,...._y �'� . ,t,�`� ?� «- ^� i �1 ,,. mal�zrtgits decision. Architect. r----- ►%oorsanger&Associates. .k ,, - :,,..- `- .•..a-.. -.Yl'.-.. - ,, -+" ... :'.mw.-...Y"Y--.-....t_.?..-'sit� '-w- lily rif � i$:.ia Zc K IIIIn "-.- - -r r ^'+// 4 1 i t k1 ,_w__ _iti „F Fir`- MD ' -';::::-.14'-'• ---; --- ' ._ -.F.'fi..., k. ,•....." . ,........,,,--! i `fiC: id s1 ,� TS2 1'`4 l' �� fr ,F. s i, i ""-rw.+-tis YT A.;..,..`-, _ '1 ab " tit �`_� ''�. - i • A building-by-building map of a district is a necessary and easily — - I : LI - understood tool for illustrating N/� j - p z.- ch things as buildin si - ti S �h j� ( II - C. 1nce, condition, age, current use, ' _- , Ike= 0 ning, and vacant land. In addi- tion to a series of maps, the Whole- il liar-'=:=�- I c7 sale District Historic Area Planfor I ;.::" ' 1 UL:, _. . .,_ I Indianapolis also includes dia- it j . ;1 a ;t-- 1 t j C—, - grams that illustrate the develop- • E i ,_ able envelope for vacant land in the -. `" district. The plan explains that the = j Y • - diagrams do not indicate appropri- _ ; ®i i1r - WHOLESALE t ' s�,y,..c� � DISTRICT ate building shapes but rather, the ; � allowable maximum massing and = . , .. ,' _ IL-' - _— • , _ � height of mfill construction. Walden;Significanc e -:} oc.•uwlnpJti101.S1 AlFl ION- _ .4= I7 IL, I _ram �� •I 4 l' ,\ ?= I it 111 /II✓%%3 Ilji ii:-:. i�%/% ill i1 / I41 : ..,......'-'. , ,,.4,5i.„,,,,,,,,...,,,,,.,,,,,..,.:!,:,;',,.,,.;a7>,';.,. rz' that need improvement. The recommendations take into account the wide discrepancy in resources that are available to commissions. For example, some commissions are assisted by support staff;however, many still operate with little or no staff. In some cities and towns, a sizable design community exists while in others it does not. Despite their differences,most preservation commissions share a desire to improve their expertise and effectiveness. The recommendations that fol- low will help commissions make decisions on requests for new construction but they do not and cannot provide absolute solutions. Every request for new construction in a historic district is site specific, and what was success- ful in one location can be a disaster in another. The challenge for preserva- tion commissions is knowing how to make the judgments that will preserve the distinguishing characteristics of the district while allowing expressions of change and adaptation. E Design Review: The Essential tio Documents Basic operational tools and procedures are essential if commissions are to give a thorough and fair review to applications for new construction and if applicants and the public are to understand the process. These are the same for both new construction and rehabilitation projects and include a survey or inventory, a preservation plan,an ordinance, design guidelines, and ad- ministrative procedures. The Survey:Documenting Your Historic Resources The survey documents the resources in a historic area. Through written descrip- tions and photographs,it records information on all buildings and sites such as their age,style,type,and condition,and on other visual elements such as open space,vacant lots,vistas,street and landscaping patterns,and sidewalk and fence materials and design. The survey identifies the distinguishing characteristics and special gi,alities of the area and helps determine district boundaries. It forms the basis for the preservation plan and the design guidelines under which rehabilita- tion and new construction projects are reviewed. Survey methodology is important because the results will have both imme- diate �t application to the documentation of existing conditions and long-term application to proposals for rehabilitation, demolition, the moving of struc- tures, and new construction. The cohesiveness of a historic area depends on many factors including those buildings and sites that individually may lack distinction but collectively support the broader design and cultural features esof the area. The method for collecting data should accommodate these fac- tors because the survey results will influence decisions on the alteration or demolition of buildings. For example, surveys based on a ranking system tend to make buildings and sites that are collectively rather than individu- ally important to a district expendable and,therefore,vulnerable to demolition. The preservation commission will refer to the survey forms,visual records, and base maps frequently. The information should be available to the pub- lic and will be of particular interest to property owners in the area. The survey information should be regularly updated as well as incorporated into a citywide data base. If a survey did not originally identify the location of vacant,buildable lots in a district,this should be included in an update. — For districts in which there is mounting pressure for new construction, a supplementary survey of vacant lots may be advantageous. The Preservation Plan:Defining Your Goals A preservation plan provides a descriptive overview of the historic area and outlines the philosophical goals and the recommendations for its preserva- , tion and development. It should be based on an analysis of the survey re- sults, other planning and zoning regulations for such things as traf is and parking,use, density and new development, and input from property owners and residents. The plan need not be lengthy but should include clear, con- cise answers to the following questions. g There are two locally designated districts in Breckenridge, Colo.as _ - ' shown in the map on the right. The onservation district embraces thein o - t � fit' j re area of the older part of town r_ d serves as a transitional zone as _ " �''1r Pam:r�4 / _ , distinguished from the historic dis- --" ► ;` ` ' '-- `r %," trict which contains the greatest " ` "�� ~%' , •-,.ti, 1, .a concentration of historic structures. • 1 ! _ :g = ',n; �` �1 "�",j '' Design review is applied to all ^". " " -� `I l A'' �"` _ projects in both districts but new — `� . �'��. �' ; j �-1. IL ��4 1 construction criteria for the conser- �'` -T- �st. CIS i i vation district is broader than for �� - �� l�' the historic di �--- -�- ^; _ - _ strict as explained in ��__ - -"��' ��•,� the Handbook of Design Standards ) ••I LEGEND 1 �iii. Local Mrsloric District Boundary for the Historic Conservation Dis- ;; " " National Register Historic District Bountlary � ... i �` District Conservation Distt B tricts. In addition,as shown in the - map below,the districts have been subdivided into character areas a...K„„� --- _ 1 and design standards have been issesi printed in a series of separate - --R booklets for each area. / 1 1 E4ST&DE , /1101 BMWs P06E iWM5T0� - TP.MSTW =7 mjT'• .. c. 1- 1 1 1r a.yM..'_.c.-IDlrnr....-� RI M4Pip E pE4DENiyl "1_ Rr E D 1 F J -_ _ rENiMl i j:. 11 _ k T RI MOITIMIWW IJ 6Wt14yyM1"-1 — nT=Mr-oEM W t _ ._ ' , -Tae ESJOEjinq� 1 1_--^\� -..1 Or YMrr-mtErf R/mnE 'y -_- Ncr Moprn...M I ; 1 RI Paves PARK CONDOM __— I •What is significant about the area? • What are the physical characteristics and the special qualities that make it significant? •What do we want to preserve? Determining how to maintain historical and architectural integrity is prob- ably the greatest challenge when defining the goals for a historic area. The , complexity of the task increases as the opportunity for new construction in- creases in a district.For example, a goal may be to preserve the image of the area as unchanged as possible; to preserve the integrity of the district while allowing change; to create a sense of continuity that does not exist at present; or perhaps a combination of these approaches. Defining the goals raises other questions. •Is visual compatibility more important than authentic representation of the evolution and change of the district? •Does imitative architecture distort or enforce the goals for the district? •Does the volume of new development threaten the integrity of the district? •What is the long-term potential for new construction and what will the 3 j impact be? k 1 1 la ,. r • • • It is essential that these questions be answered because they give needed di- 1 rection to applicants, designers,and preservation commission members when considering new construction and rehabilitation projects in the area. IDA plan also should recommend ways to achieve its stated goals. As an ex- ample, the survey of a neighborhood identifies a concentration of significant residential structures ringed by vacant lots and buildings similar in scale but altered and of mixed use. The plan might recommend that the core be des- ignated a historic district with explicit guidelines for the rehabilitation of I� existing structures, and that the outer area be designated a secondary zone with guidelines that focus on new construction and more lenient rehabilita- tion standards for existing buildings. This particular example addresses the �I edges of historic districts,an important but frequently overlooked issue when historic districts are designated. • Once again, the preservation plan for a historic district should be coordi- nated with other planning departments and updated periodically not only to reflect changes in the district but also to redefine the goals and objectives if appropriate. The Preservation Ordinance:Your Legal Mandate The local preservation ordinance is the legal mandate for the designation of New construction in a historic dis- historic districts, the establishment of preservation commissions, and the trict is often tied to a request for adoption of procedures for administering the districts. It should include the the demolition of an existing strut- following provisions that are particularly relevant to new construction: ture. Some preservation commis- sions will not consider demolition •approval of new construction,both additions and free-standing buildings; requests unless a replacement • approval of new construction projects that is not contingent on replication project is also presented for review. tioof specific architectural styles; This line drawing of the one-block • approval of alterations or demolition of all buildings in a district, Blakemore Conservation Zoning regardless of age; District in Nashville, Tenn.,shows • a demolition clause granting a commission the right to deny demolitions the conceptual design for a low- or, at the least, to delay them; scale office building in a row of • a clause that defines minimum maintenance and demolition by neglect; early 20th century residences that • a requirement that demolition requests include future plans for a site; and have been zoned as a Commercial • a clause that requires archeological investigation at least on historically PUD with a historic overlay, and significant sites if not all new construction sites. adapted for retail and office use. Based on this drawing, the Metro- An ordinance may list detailed criteria and procedures for reviewing applica- politan Historic Zoning Commis- tions including new construction or, after outlining the general purposes sion granted the demolition of a and functions of the district and the commission,it may refer to a separate bungalow which was considered of document or documents detailing guidelines and procedural standards. marginal architectural merit and The latter approach allows greater long-term flexibility primarily because in which was adjacent to a vacant lot. • r � _ VI Line drawings are an effective way < ` of illustrating the streetscape and building characteristics of a dis- fa t. The facade elevation shows G:hL`Rht TYPKnt UPPER fLOOK II f ecific commercial streetscape wRINNbI.1 N ni IC 4t1 rr VINDOW t5 5CL10,VIT„ WILDING HEIGHTS Of CORNICES. 5/Wt. 5-TALL Y,An1D�T1.5. i' elluride, Colo. S .l l I ^ ) Eiit In districts where there is greater <' _ ' — �__ fl fl (1 [l 7�:.., III;i1 —LEI variety,isometric block drawings f I _.] �• I - a 12 a. can be useful. The guidelines for • ' Galveston Tex illustrate a typical FKSr rlllyc noLDINC5 If/T:5T FLOOR IS KECE55D > > typ• AR" ALISNED. OPEN,1RNg5PARLNt EMRNJCES. block in the historic district and include a conceptual drawing of a new primary structure inserted in the block. Sources:Design Guidelines for - 10'- Buildings in Telluride by Winter '� Company and the Telluride Com- . ^ ` ` I �, 1. modify;and Design Guidelines for I r, ' ' the Historic Districts in Galveston, +�.=, ::-�14 h Rye. /� Texas, by Ellen Beasley. - ./rr /�� / -{?✓�\ - ' %I. ors NEW',P JriARY ST,euC77./g: $/M/LA g SHlr�B Yr ONE P://`igY ENT XA.VO_ r. ALTHOJ-H TWO LIV/A/ uNITS SoLA,C' (JJLLECTO.e.5 ///OD,V feo - SreEe MA-pi ENT,er jAGFS ST,CE.5T 5Er-5AC,e" c 7Yo/eAL most communities the political system makes it difficult to amend an ordi- nance. If separate documents are used, they should be prepared as soon as an ordinance is adopted. The Design Guidelines:Adopting Your Standards Design guidelines are written standards against which applicants should measure planned projects and preservation commissions should review them. The guidelines analyze those qualities and characteristics high- lighted in the survey that should be preserved and restored in rehabilitation projects as well as respected when new construction is proposed within the ` area. They provide a common body of information for all participants in the review process. For the purpose of reviewing new construction, the guidelines should iden- tify and illustrate the basic design_elements,not style-specific, that establish the character of the area. The guidelines also must indicate the relative sig- nificance of these elements. For example,in a historic district composed of late 19th-century brick row houses, all similar in scale and style, the most significant elements may be the basic building volume, street alignment, and material uniformity. The overall homogeneity of the area is more — ri - , r _ ► I The eight-story Olympic Block was built on a central,highly visible ^- "' -: corner in Seattle's Pioneer Square A " 3 Preservation District and was part " Kti of a historic rehabilitation tax _ _ -ir,: u. credit project that also included '- . - _` f'� the rehabilitation of the adjoining _' ' historic structures(foreground). ':....Jr.!!!" ,f.rt. The project, which went through l,,,,,.,,� ,.__•- _- multiple-layers of design review on ,}, T ' ,. -.�:;ors ._. . the local and federal I ` ` '•, ated considerable public interest. !�a I! -• '9 % ' �'_ It is a mixed-use project with resi- '> t n - dential usage on the two highest .:_ - .-1,t. t floors.Architect: Hewitt/Olson/ "a s ,,.. 1 -- Walker/Daly/Islet'. Ij• - I ..� . fr. 4.. 1. ' 1,010°41 '... re. ► ' 3 (}■■fr� - ,-.,--e_ ..• :2 '`'.........0"1 -'' 1 -...4$a *.k."' :1- important than individual buildings. The guidelines for such an area should state clearly that these elements must be the primary consider- ations when designing and reviewing infill projects. • New construction guidelines should stress the importance of context,including the relationship of a proposed project to abutting buildings and side streets. If - characteristics differ within the district itself,the guidelines should indicate that • the design standards also vary from street to street. The guidelines should re- quire an applicant for a new construction project to document the context of the proposed work in submission materials;the preservation commission,in turn, must be familiar with the design standards and any variations within the area. Design guidelines for a historic area should not dictate certain styles for new buildings unless one of the goals for the area is restoration to a specific time period. Most districts,however, exhibit an evolution of architectural styles and cultural trends including the 20th century. Therefore,guidelines that emphasize context and design elements,rather than styles, allow the broadest and most flexible interpretation for new construction. Participation in the development of design guidelines is an instructive exer- cise for a preservation commission because it requires close scrutiny of the area. Someone with expertise in visual analysis must be involved, such as an architect who is a member of the commission, a staff person, or a con- sultant. The resulting document should be simple, graphic, and easily un- derstood by the general public as well as design professionals. Commissions and communities with greater resources may wish to use computer graphics to develop their design guidelines or have a scale model built of the historic district. rr The design guidelines for a historic district should be reassessed on a regular ba- sis. For example,many districts begin as residential areas but uses gradually shift • to commercial and office activities. New construction is of a larger scale than originally anticipated and yet the guidelines still apply to a residential district. Commissions participating in the Certified Local Government program ' through their state historic preservation offices or administering local his- toric districts that also are listed in the National Register of Historic Places and that contain income-producing properties or Community Development Block Grant and Urban Development Action Grant target areas should be familiar with The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Certain projects,primarily additions to historic structures, may require re- view by the local preservation commission, the state historic preservation office,and the National Park Service of the Department of the Interior. Some state historic preservation offices require that communities in the Certified Local Governments adopt The Standards as pan of their design re- view process. The Standards include very broad guidelines for new con- struction but do not address the individual characteristics of local historic districts. Consequently,they should be used in conjunction with,but not in place of,guidelines written for the specific local situation. Design Reviews: Administrative Procedures Both the preservation commission and applicants for new construction projects will benefit from a detailed set of procedures for administering the review process. These include a step-by-step outline of the review process, submission requirements for applications, and a system for maintaining the commission's records. Many commissions distribute brochures to explain the process. Administrative procedures should include a system for public notification through local newspapers and posting commission meetings in the city or town hall. The Design Review Schedule The review process for new construction projects varies from community to community depending on the division of responsibilities among city depart- ments. The schedule for the review procedure and related activities such as building and special use permits,zoning changes, and the appeals process should be outlined. For each phase of the review process, the applicant should be informed of the department to which application is made,the de- cisions and actions to be expected at each level, and the time frame. If some decisions are made by staff, this should be explained. The Submission Requirements Commissions must remember that their decisions will be based entirely on what is presented verbally and graphirally by applicants and that the submission pro- d", cedure must require enough information to make fair decisions. The require- ments should be tailored to the design resources available in a community as well as the scope of specific projects. For example,a scale model may not be a re- alistic requirement in a town with no design professionals nor would one be nec- essary for minor rear-lot buildings. The recommended minimum submission requirements for new construction projects are: •written specifications including measurements; •photographs of the site and its surroundings including side streets; •facade elevations; •primary street facade elevation(s)superimposed to scale on a photograph of the streetscape; • material samples including a sample wall on location;and • color samples if this is a design review responsibility. Ideally, submission requirements for new construction in historic areas also should include: • a complete set of plans and elevations; • scaled drawings including street elevations that show the proposed struc- ture in context and all facing streets; and • a scale model in accurate colors showing the proposed building in context. The Visual Laboratory of the Historic Preservation Program at the University of Vermont assists a: • government agencies,preservation commissions, and citizen groups in • assessing the visual effect of pro- _ _ _ _.. posed projects through the use of - accurately scaled simulations of • landscapes,rural villages, and even - /\ portions of the cities. In the eir- • }, i f ; a . r z ample shown,planners and citi- >. tl i - zens in the Village of Williston, Vt., were able to visunli7e the impact of _., .-•_�._ • ;��•�t-•�:--_ _. a commercial development on the town's rural setting. 1x t • max;- New construction projects in the t historic setting may have to satisfy more than one set of design star- _ ds. The twelve houses andF. Jw 1 mmunity Building built by the !lir using Authority of the City of ,r " °` - �^ )\' Yuma Wiz.)and financed by HUDpi, _ ,, through the Low-Rent Public Hous- = --4 =},.' t - r i i j. `` Mg Program, are located in the " - -- - — f - / Century Heights Conservancy Resi- J • � " K dential Historic District,a portion -� -. rt -„,�; . of which is also listed in the Na- s �.•,' • tional Register. The project had to L :w , ' s.x meet the design standards of both ° : - . .' w the local district and HUD which, = -- -- -- --- w 5•: w ` � among other things, will not allow porches on public housing projects. - The review process resulted in the �^"�""�' p ro j:`xi:*::?: PLAYGROUND approval of a bungalow house type ; —I _. rather than the adobe design that was originally proposed and the in- - . I IUI I I I I ?clusion of"porchettes"on the front J. facades. Uniform setbacks and _❑ '°a I"G front-street orientation for the ial - j houses, as seen in the final site = , - t . ' �� ,�,�,� �,�'�, ° plan, were other changes that __' evolved during the review process. ' � a - The complex received an Award of *Liza Merit from the National Association - e '� =; mousing and Redevelopment Offi- -+ -- - , ;1 . - -- p k1 s.Architect HPL Architects. ': In communities where the resources exist, commissions should make the scale model of a district or computer°raphics capability available to appli- cants. For example, if a commission has a scale model of a district that is large enough to make judgments and comparisons,the applicant would need to make a model only of the proposed building. Many commissions require a preapplication workshop or meeting with ap- plicants who are proposing new construction projects. The project design is discussed on a conceptual level as are relevant planning and zoning require- ments. The applicant may display working drawings at this time. The pre- application workshop can help reduce confrontations that may occur at a formal review meeting when an applicant presents final drawings that the commission has never seen and that do not meet the guidelines. Preservation commission members always should study the site of a new construction project before any discussion. Some commissions make on- site visits to such projects with or without the applicants. It should be clear to all participants that no decisions are made during either preapplication workshops or on-site visits. The discussions in both instances should be documented. F • Record Keeping A well-organized system for keeping records and filing applications is im- portant to the smooth administration of a commission and directly influ- ences its ability to enforce decisions. Minutes should be taken at all meetings which,ideally,also should be taped. Descriptions of decisions should be clear and comprehensive. Approvals, denials and alterations as well as the date and the initials of the chairperson or designated authority, should be recorded on drawings and other visual materials. Each applica- • tion and related drawings should have a separate file folder. . Before submitting materials, the applicant should understand what will he kept for the permanent files of the preservation commission and what will be returned upon completion of the project. An applicant should be able to supply duplicate copies of all the materials listed except a scale model which usually is returned. Design Review: Conducting the Meeting A thorough review of new construction applications largely depends on how commission meetings are conducted. Commission members should be businesslike,focused and attentive, and the commission as a group must understand its role as reviewer. Some commissions approve or deny projects without offering specific design suggestions whereas other commis- sions do. Most commissions are required to list their reasons for denying applications. Commissions should limit their discussion to those aspects of the project for which they are responsible and leave other issues of zoning and planning to the appropriate departments. It is important for the preservation commission to remember that the re- view process involves people and personalities as well as buildings. First and foremost, the commission represents a larger client—the public. As such,its primary responsibility is to make decisions that support and main- tain the goals and the standards of the historic area. The list of participants in the review process can include commission members, design profession- als,property owners,neighbors,builders, contractors, developers,preserva- tion organizations, support staff, elected officials,lawyers, and others. Viewpoints undoubtedly will differ,but in most instances, all participants are eager to reach a decision that is acceptable to everyone. The key is to keep communication lines open and leave room for negotiation. Applicants should know what is expected of them in their presentations. At the conclusion of the application review,all participants should under- stand the decision that has been made and the next step whether it be the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness,a building permit, or a request for design modifications. To ensure a thorough and orderly design review meeting,commissions should ask three broad questions that will guide them through any application for new construction: I • • Commissions often review projects <�Z,. �.` that reflect a shift in use and scale }` "'' ' '{ r i; in an area. The Providence His- //- i.. Y toric District Commission re- ` i i` S.b `,q- 'iewed two projects proposed by \ • •• f ••,z` ctf• ,' 't i f ir-i��,'-. ; 3rown University:a residential c. �_ ,- : ✓=.-�,' ,As ';ter^' , j complex and a parking deck. Each �',� 's 'r ^t!- i.0.: t. ofthe proposed projects covered a ,;� '! �� s �`: , ; - �� - cit block in the College Hill His- '� l •,,`.�V r -__ . :.. :' .-,, � x. . ;. toric Districtg k` -,,-: ,- .. i:;•� ,, �, Iv-1 . di The parking deck �� ,; a r� = :a: ' which is visible between the trees - a.1 ram• _ �i ; +. on the right of thephotograph, -. '\a ` 114. t. < -{ ,rY - s � • •-, .: n. was built on a block that was, at \\\. �- :L G .E• =�a; - ',A“j!t. ' , ,., ,. one time, a tennis court and then �<a a • +r, .!,tY r '- .. t72E•� a surface parking lot. As part of .. --��t�• vow. P .�� _s y .i 4 the review process, the university _z -� accepted a deed restriction with�,-�_ -_,Lit. r , . the city that does not permit build- ` '- y 1-; : E j c -" t j 1. mg additional stories to the struc- '�' -,v� ',, "� • };,; � tore. The residential c ' '' "�k r--='i 'a post-dates the parking deck. :;T==—�' I . 4R;%�. •' The bay Th indowS,intersecting __� -�-� - q'L rg '• �+ -ter • d gable roofs, and yard space were =a+G �.Ei i ill �;„.„. =' designed to suggest row housing - F r� _ ; :� and to complement the detached = ('h'i •= . • '' 'f ` -'tl ==�i single family housing in the 1 u'� 0'4- _ 41 neighborhood, an example of l which is in the background. An31 ' __ # `--- interior courtyard provides public ': # ! . mace for the complex. Architect ; _,�. , • king deck Seymour Gage Assa- = 1 � _`� ;� _ @ crates. Architect:residential con- _ t'"a -~- =y _ plex:Davis,Brody&Associates. - _ ' • te a--•,.-: - i l —'. •• r =... ram- .. . _'i a �. 'a c - . - -,- _ ram:-. = i n r -,>:v� Does Everyone Understand the Application? Before the commission responds to an applicant's presentation of a proposed project, all aspects of the application should be clear to everyone. The requi- site visual and written materials should be prepared properly and provide enough information to determine the impact of the project on the district. There should be a consensus on the definition of architectural,technical and planning terms, and adjectives such as "compatible," "contextual,"and "appropriate." Commission members frequently complain that a finished new construc- tion project looks nothing like what was expected. In many such cases, project files and documents reveal that design details were either unclear or unspecified. The commission should not hesitate to table or deny an appli- cation and request additional materials if it lacks sufficient information to make a decision. On occasion, commissioners may suspect that the appli- cant has deliberately obscured the intended design or materials. For ex- ample,a material sample may be"similar but not identical to the actual material"to be used. In such cases,the commission should request clarifi- cation even if it means delaying a decision. • Does the Application Meet the Design Guidelines? To judge whether an application meets the design guidelines for the district, commission members must determine if the project supports and maintains the stated goals of the district and respects the design elements that charac- terize the district. The commission should be sure that the appropriate de • - partments have reviewed the project for compliance with all other zoning requirements such as geological and flood plain hazard areas,solar air rights, and off-street parking. Finally,the commission should evaluate the lonb term effect of the project on the district. Having determined that the proposed project fits the overall goals of the dis- trict, the commission should evaluate the project in terms of the larger de- sign features such as scale,massing and height,followed by a look at the details. Commissions often focus on the details first,losing sight of the larger issues.This frequently reflects inadequate presentation materials that make it easier to visualize the details of a project than to visualize the mass- ing or scale. Attention to details later in the review,however, should not be overlooked:poor detailing and poor quality materials can compromise an otherwise well-designed building as many preservation commissions and communities have learned. This single-fnmily, three-bedroom residence is clearly a new structure f.:41P•- ••• but maintains the scale and mass- f'a - ing of the adjoining primary struc- `4 ,e.t tares in the Old Northside Historic j. ; :' - .� District in Indianapolis. Architect tt• s ' '. •�� ' : Woollen,Molzan and Partners. ,� , t ,! -= _ • - sig Eta ( r1 . Kti •--• • 1 � { _ '� — _ ti 1• i ' yam -'z'►:--ire .. Yam.. { This sample design review checklist is based on Building with Nantucket in Mind: Guide- SITE PLANNING ROOF lines for Protecting the Historic Architecture and Landscape of - Siting of the Building: Shape(gable, lean-to, etc.) Nantucket Island. Use of a Setback Pitch checklist will ensure that the Facade width Overhang commission considers all the im- Spacing between buildings Dormers portant design elements that dis- Skylight tinguish the district in its review. Delineation of street space: Chimneys of new construction proposals. Creation of continuous Checklists should be prepared street edge for each historic district because Separation of public, semi- WINDOWS public, and private areas these design elements vary. A Fences Type(double-hung,case- checklist will help commission members determiner ment,etc.) f the new Garage placement Shape and proportion structure or development will Rhythm and balance contribute to and enhance the Landscape plantings Blinds/shutters long-term goals of the historic district. Site Improvements: Walkways DOORWAYS Driveways Retaining walls Placement and orientation Type(paneled, etc.) BULK,PROPORTION and SCALP (building size) EXTERIOR ARCHITEC- TURAL ELEMENTS Height Facade proportions Door platforms and steps Scale Porches Exterior stairs and decks Roofwalks and platforms MASSING(building shape) Mass of main portion: MATERIALS Form Roof shape Wall surfaces Orientation Foundation Roof Additions: Placement Form TRIM and MISCELLANEOUS Bulk DETAILS Trim Gutters and leaders Louvres, vents, etc. House lights Public utilities COLORS To organize and simplify the review of new construction applications, com- missions may want to develop a checklist of the design elements to be con- sidered and as specified in the guidelines. The checklist also should begin with the broader design features such as scale,massing and height, and then cover the details such as materials, openings and ornamentation. Following the applicant's presentation and the general discussion, the commission can study each element to determine whether or not it meets the guidelines. Using this method,the commission is more likely to base its evaluation of the project on the design standards than on personal opinions. Commission members and applicants alike can distinguish more easily between the design elements for which there is approval and disapproval. Items on the checklist should not be ranked or given quantitative values;they should be used to facilitate the review process and clarify decisions. Occasions will arise when commissions simply should deny a request be- cause it is obvious that the applicant or designer does not understand the district and that the proposed design will never meet the standards even with modifications. Too often, commissions try to redesign such projects, frequently with disastrous results. Instead, commissions should say"no" and encourage the applicant to start anew. Preapplication workshops will not eliminate these situations entirely but they will reduce them. What Is the Decision and Does Everyone Understand It? No application review should conclude until everyone understands the deci- sion as it relates to the design guidelines. Was the application approved as presented, approved with modifications, or denied? The commission should identify and describe any modifications so that the applicant understands which design elements to rework for the next review. If the commission de- nies a proposal,it should explain the appeals process to the applicant. Once the commission gives final approval to the design,it should outline subsequent steps in the review process to the applicant such as obtaining a building permit. The applicant should understand that any change in the approved design during construction must be presented to the commission. Any enforcement requirements should be stated clearly such as a time';T,;- tation on a building permit or when construction must begin. Finally,the drawings,plans, and other submission materials must be dated, initialed, and stamped with the decision. If there is a series of plans for a project, items that are not approved also should be stamped and filed to avoid confusion. • • Design Review: Maintaining Professional Standards • The successful review of any project by a preservation commission depends on several factors. In addition to having the basic set of operational tools and procedures in place, commission members must do their homework. Each member should review the survey, ordinance,guidelines, and proce- dures regularly. The commission should hold workshops to review deci- sions and policies, and to evaluate its performance. The discussions should include questions such as: 1. Do property owners,residents and the commission still agree on goals for the district as expressed in the plan or should these goals be revised? • 2. Do all commission members understand the responsibilities of the commission or are they confusing them with those of the planning com- mission or the zoning board? 3. Do the guidelines cover new or anticipated types of projects such as the construction of secondary structures as rental units, the development of buildings for mixed uses, or the relocation of historic buildings on va- cant lots in the district? 4_ What are the recurring problems and how can they be resolved? For example, the massing of new buildings may be out of scale with the exist- ing structures but politically, down-zoning is not an option. One solution may be to prepare more specific guidelines for treating the street level of 41 new buildings. In another case, it may be necessary to work with other commissions and boards to resolve a conflict between present zoning and design and preservation objectives. As an example,matching the scale of 19th-century residences with the single-family zoning designation in a neighborhood may inhibit new construction or lead to poorly scaled single-family dwellings. If well-designed duplexes are more feasible both economically and architecturally, the commission may decide to sched- ule a meeting with the appropriate city and residential groups to outline the options. As stated previously, operational tools and procedures may need to be re- fined,updated or even revised to accommodate changes in the district. In fact, commissions should view this as standard professional practice. Out- dated survey information and base maps that do not reflect improved build- ing conditions, additional vacant lots, or new construction not only can cause confusion when reviewing applications but also can result in poor de- cisions. If there are any procedural changes, the materials that are given to applicants should be revised and reprinted immediately. Clear and current documents and procedures will aid both designers and applicants and en- courage better design quality. In addition to regular assessments of their decisions and operation,preserva- 1 tion commissions should define then role as public educator, a role that most commissions must assume. A commission can introduce many pro- grams depending, of course, on the resources available. These can range from scheduling a small workshop to discuss a particularly difficult issue g::,,, 7k-1 � , m t 2 . ki ,, r: ; Buildings that are threatened in .....{-.., x�'r•,,.'.:..—.. -.ct-.�'wS""....tat 'Y ac �s y+L 4 '.r '•".: �-..s-'y't .-. *heir 1 location 1,.« . - , tf-� ,. n ,,:- ei or.'gina..ocauon can be an- .- " i' ;*' � 4 ', % •-"'� A y_ other solution to infill development ', " ' `- +• - e e in a historic district. Most commis- " .-fir fir- -.- -•: e k i �� , , ,y,_ sions apply the same design stan- ' z L ""-"M '� '`-'` ,.�' '•' dards to move-in buildings as to .,'`j ,., `` r"� new construction in terms of their -r `.. ` ,- al .-' , t 1 S `""--" .,,"'-_,'. _ ,' relationship to the surrounding r vat + ram '-'' �r �s"' ' x ' _ area. The four-square house in the . - — `_11 - 1. foreground was moved from the s; f. •� : : n -- ,__ site of a proposed university sports 1 t ,J ;s . , _ - { arena to the Sherman Hill Historic {. - - a. District in Des Moines,Iowa. Built i. r.,. . p"`r `_ •` �� as a duplex but converted to a tri- ,. . 5-' L - plex, tine house was reverted to a rk u�,. ...„,„ , �.,.- , ` �[` :, a 3 xR duplex when moved and is now 0" , ,;- :?...l -,4 .. - 3 owner-occupied tom- era- F e - -k 4 *." 1't` -. `� ram--" _. • # ,.. - 'a' r._ pkrin +�°.2y -- , ,...,7.Y_ ,ram... with property owners in a district to planning a one-day, citywide confer- ence with speakers. Publications are essential and can be anything from printed design guidelines to simple xeroxed sheets that explain the function of the commission. The cost of the program is not important—what is im- portant is communicating with the public. Preservation commissions may find it both educational and reassuring to participate in statewide or regional workshops involving other local preser- vation commissions. These keep commissioners current on issues affecting local historic districts and build networks to exchange ideas. Many state historic preservation offices require that communities participating in the CLG program send representatives to such meetings. Lasting Decisions Workshops,preapplication discussions, design guidelines, and checklists of design elements, are techniques that contribute to the ability of a local pres- ervation commission to review applications for new construction projects in historic districts with confidence. It is most important for commission members to know the district and the characteristics that distinguish it as well as to define its long-term goals. Without an understanding and a con- sensus about these basic considerations,it is impossible for any preservation commission to deal properly with requests for new construction. In addition,a solid set of operational procedures is essential to a fair and or- derly decision-making process. Open communication and continuing edu- cation are necessary ingredients not only with the public and applicants but also among commission members. In smaller communities and those with limited resources, commission members themselves may have to initiate ioI and prepare many, if not all, of their programs and materials. 19 The North Carolina Medical Soci- :�:� V " �• ; `•• ety requested demolition of the ,`� , 3t . building on the left located in the q • - a-`,a- i" fir `. a• -, 'y.j j� 4,f d - Oakwood Historic District in Ra- • ` ' y- r leigh and proposed planting the =-*•- - • vacant lot with trees. The Historic ��;`r ��t ':�,'-} l•l ' ^. ;,. District Commissions denial '• ci, �"� �` • �'`' • • • R - ' of the .• `�+� ��,�•� � ,_ ,4y,.• a, ys • } request has placed none-year , - 1 ? - 'Of "'A •:'- demolition delay on the house. tip' 1 - , •-: _ - - '— -Y j - The infill project on the right _ t: ^t ` y 3: was ,; built in 1985 for offices by the !A • i '• , •.4'is "` ` North Carolina Beer Wholesalers and was designed to be compatible i • _ t : I I: f f with the residential surroundings • ; • including its next door neighbor. --�- - - - _.. _ _ --� ..�- _ _, _.�„ _. , The Governor's Mansion is directly - _ s. _ . _. across the street from the build- ings. Architect of the infill proj- ect Clearscapes Architecture PA. ° _ '-"'" Even when all the tools are in place,reviewing applications for new con- struction projects in historic districts is seldom easy. They are site specific a and project unique:no two projects are alike, and rarely,if ever,is there one 1 clear-cut solution. When reviewing new construction projects, a preserva- tion commission should remember that it is the impact of the design on the historic surroundings that should be measured first,followed by an evalua- tion of the individual structure. Equally important, a commission should examine each decision within the context of the long-term goals for the dis- trict as a whole because, once built, the decisions of a preservation commis- sion become an integral,visible, and lasting presence in the historic district. Acknowledgements I • This publication was written and revised by Ellen Beasley,preservation con- sultant. The public design review process and the design of new buildings - for historic settings have been among her concentrated areas of study and writings since the late 1970s. Based in Houston, Tex.,Ms.Beasley received a Loeb Fellowship at the Harvard Graduate School of Design and a Rome Prize in Urban Design at the American Academy in Rome. • Elements of the handbook were developed originally for a class that was organized by the author and taught jointly with Nore V.Winter,urban de- signer. Dwayne Jones,preservation planner of the Texas Historical Com- mission,was particularly helpful in preparing the revision. The author also wishes to acknowledge collectively all the people who provided illustrations for the revision. The illustration and architectural credits recog»e only some of the groups and individuals who have been in- volved in the building and publication projects that are represented in this booklet. t 20 "-` - w Select Bibliography Design and Development:Infill Housing Compatible with Historic Neigh- borhoods.Information Series No.41. Ellen Beasley. Washington,D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation. 1988,reprinted 1992. The publi- cation describes the preconstruction phase of the infill process and the vari- ous participants in a multi-layer design review process that includes a local preservation commission and a neighborhood association. The Edgefield Historic District in Nashville,Tenn., serves as a case study. Available for • $5.00 from: Information Series,National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue,N.W.,Washington,D.C. 20036. (202)673-4189. A Handbook on Historic Preservation Law. Christopher J.Duerksen, ed. Washington,D.C.:The Conservation Foundation and the National Center for Preservation Law. 1983. The chapter on"Local Preservation Law:Re- viewing Applications for Demolition,Alteration or New Construction," will be of particular interest to commissions. Also includes "Recom- mended Model Provisions for a Preservation Ordinance,"with annotations by Stephen N.Dennis as Appendix A. Available for$30 plus$2.00 shipping and handling from: The World Wildlife Fund,Publications Handling De- partment,P.O.Box 4866,Hampden Post Office,Baltimore,Md. 21211. (410)516-6951. Saving Place:A Guide and Report Card for Protecting Community Charac- ter. Philip B.Herr. Boston:National Trust for Historic Preservation, North- east Regional Office. 1991. The booklet is designed to help citizens of small and rural towns to identify and protect the characteristics that distin- guish their communities. New development is placed within the context of ■ growth management issues. Available for$14.95 plus$2.00 shipping from the National Trust for Historic Preservation,Northeast Regional Office, 7 Faneuil Hall Marketplace,5th Floor,Boston,Mass. 02109. (617)523-0885. A Design Primer for Cities and Towns. Anne Mackin and Alex Krieger. Boston:Massachusetts Council on the Arts and Humanities. 1989. The book serves as a guide for decision makers,both citizens and professionals, in the public design and planning processes. The Primer explains the impli- cations of design decisions and how various aspects of design affect plan- ning and development. Although written for Massachusetts,it is applicable to communities everywhere. Available for$15.00 from the Massachusetts Municipal Association,60 Temple Place,Boston,Mass. 02111. Old and New Architecture:Design Relationship. National Trust for His- toric Preservation, ed. Washington,D.C.:Preservation Press. 1980. This • book was one of the first major publications to address the issue of new de- sign in the historic context. The series of essays reflect a range of opinions and while some of the material may be dated, the basic issues remain the same. The book is out of print but is available in many libraries. Vacant Lots. Carol Willis and Rosalie Genervo, eds. New York:Princeton- Architectural Press and The Architectural League of New York. 1989. Ar- chitects were invited to design infill housing for ten sites in older,mostly small-scale neighborhoods in New York. The published results, Vacant Lots, can serve as a textbook for anyone interested in infill design because the examples illustrate a range of solutions for each site and test the reader's ability to read and interpret plans and elevations. Available for$24.95 plus $3.00 shipping(add 8.25 percent sales tax for New York residents)from Princeton Architectural Press,37 East 7th Street,New York,N.Y., 10003. Good Neighbors:Building Next to History. Colorado Historical Society. Denver:Colorado Historical Society. 1980. A step-by-step guide to help a community identify and define its distinguishing characteristics and write a set of design guidelines. Five Colorado towns serve as examples but the pro- cess is applicable anywhere. Although printed in 1980, the publication re- - mains one of the best on the subject. Available for$4.95 plus$3.00 for shipping and handling from the Colorado Historical Society,Museum Store, 1300 Broadway,Denver, Colo. 80203. Call(303)866-4993 for information and prices on bulk orders. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Washington,D.C.: U.S.Department of the Interior,National Park Service,Preservation Assistance Division. Revised 1990. The Standards include the Secretary's guidelines for new construction with an emphasis on additions to historic buildings. The Pres- ervation Assistance Division also publishes a series of Preservation Briefs including No. 14,New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings:Preserva- tion Concerns. Both publications are available through the Superintendent of Documents,U.S. Government Printing Office,Washington,D.C.20402. The Standards is GPO stock number 024-005-01061-1, $2.00 per copy; Brief No. 14 is GPO stock number 024-005-01011-4, $1.00 per copy. Three national magazines,Architecture,Architectural Record, and PIA (Progressive Architecture),regularly publish articles featuring new design in the historic and/or urban context as well as annual preservation issues. Many libraries subscribe to at least one if not all three magazines. Organizational Resources The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions is a membership orga- nization that provides information regarding historic preservation law,local ordinances, design review, and local preservation planning. It maintains a speakers'bureau and publishes the periodic Alliance Newsletter. For fur- ther information contact: The National Alliance of Preservation Commis- sions,Hall of the States,11 1 North Capitol Street,N.W., Suite 332, Washington,D.C. 20001. The National Center for Preservation Law maintains an active file of legal issues pertaining to historic preservation,much of which relates to the de- sign review process. The Center interprets specific court cases and other subjects in a series of Updates that are available through subscription. For further information contact: The National Center for Preservation Law, 1333 Connecticut Avenue,N.W., Suite 300,Washington,D.C. 20036. (202)338-0392. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has seven regional and field of- fices that provide services to state and local organizations and individuals. These services cover all preservation activities including field visits, advi- sory assistance, conferences,and special projects on issues of particular con- cern to each region. The offices are listed on the back cover of this booklet. The National Trust's Department of Law and Public Policy provides educa- tion and advice on preservation law and historic districts,zoning, monitor- ing of preservation litigation, and other preservation issues. For further information contact the appropriate National Trust regional office. The Preservation Assistance Division of the National Park Service conducts a variety of activities to guide governmental agencies and the general public in historic preservation project work. The office is responsible for develop- ing and disseminating technical information about specific preservation and rehabilitation problems as well as interpreting The Secretary's Standards. For further information including a catalogue of their publications, contact: The Preservation Assistance Division,Technical Preservation Services, P.O. Box 37127,Washington,D.C. 20013-7127. (202)343-9578. State Historic Preservation Offices(SHPOs)administer a variety of programs including the National Register program at the state level, state and federal grants programs, and the Certified Local Government program that provides assistance in the establishment and training of local preservation commis- sions. The SHPOs conduct regular workshops for CLGs as well as maintain a series of publications and audiovisual materials that are available to CLGs. For further information, contact:National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers at(202)624-5465, the CLG Program at the National Park Service at(202)343-9505, or the National Trust regional offices. - �� ......,...... ';J`- A ,` = Secondary structures are among , _ ",- , 'y the types of new construction L -:�� - # projects reviewed by preservation 1,, ,��r commissions. The "Design Services=` Bank"offered by the Bozeman E ...mac-.• :- _.,_ . ^ (Mont.)Historic Preservation Board - L7- '' assisted the owners of this 1889 j 4 �� ;_: house in designing the detached a �`12 age/ kshop,shown on the left r wor `- T • = The new building and driveway - "'fi '—" ''` encroach upon the required 8-foot • t ' r ,, TI.- . side yard setback but the review " f � t - ! board can grant such zoning devia- - 2 '' tions providinginfill structures or ,� _ r °= " -�= additions are considered reflective - _> * t`� - --.. w.- of the design fabric of the neighbor- .' hood.Architect Donald I. �. ,....- � _ - McLaughlin. I Y Support for the National Trust is provided in part by matching grants from the U.S.Department of the Interior, National Park Service,under provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The opinions expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the U.S.Department of the Interior. I OIN THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION NETWORK The Preservation Forum of the National Trust is a membership program for professionals and organizations. The benefits and privileges of membership include subscriptions to Historic Preservation Forum,Historic Preserva- tion magazine,Historic Preservation News,participation in financial/insurance assistance programs, technical ad- vice, and substantial discounts on professional conferences and educational publications. New Information booklets • are available free upon request. To join, send$75 annual dues to: Preservation Forum • National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Avenue,N.W. Washington,D.C. 20036 (202)673-4296 Offices of the National Trust for Historic Preservation National Headquarters Northeast Office Texas/New Mexico Field Office 1785 Massachusetts Avenue,N.W. Seven Faneuil Hall Marketplace,5th Floor 500 Main Street,Suite 606 Washington,D.C: 20036 Boston,Mass. 02109 Fort Worth,Tex. 76102 (202)673-4296 (617)523-0885 (817)332-4398 (Connecticut,Maine,Massachusetts,New (New Mexico,Texas) Mid-Atlantic Office Hampshire,New York,Rhode Island,Vermont; Cliveden,6401 Germantown Ave. Western Office ' -adelphia,Pa. 19144 Southern Office One Sutter Street,Suite 707 5)438-2886 William Aiken House San Francisco,Calif. 94104 elaware,District of Columbia,Maryland,New 456 King Street (415)956-0610 e_sey,Pennsylvania,Puerto Rico,Virginia,Vir- Charleston,S.C. 29403 (Alaska,Arizona,California,Guam,Hawaii, gin Islands,West Virginia) (803)722-8552 Idaho,Micronesia,Nevada,Oregon,Utah,Wash- (Alabama,Arkansas,Florida,Georgia,Kentucky, ington) Midwest Office Louisiana,Mississippi,North Carolina,South 53 West Jackson Blvd.,Suite 1135 Carolina,Tennessee) Chicago,Ill. 60604 (312)939-5547 Mountains/Plains Office (Illinois,Indiana,Iowa,Michigan,Minnesota, 511 16th Street,Suite 700 Copyright©1992 Missouri,Ohio,Wisconsin) Denver,Colo. 80202 National Trust for Historic Preservation (303)623-1504 (Colorado,Kansas,Montana,Nebraska,North Dakota,Oklahoma,South Dakota,Wyoming; • 411. 24 vier T,v i } - ' � ��- ``' .tom" •(..- • ice ".- „is'- f , - - •' + 5- � ` ?. a"i-'--mot- -_r -.:%� fit`' L :t fs f tom•'+_' t f.-T z. c a- . ;:°,4 '14: a r.}' lF ‘6.', W -ter -,-+e -a k - C.- -�`.. '6� 7..,a_r . ( .'�i ,4ri.." -`yt3y . b1°' =c �X'.P ,cv +�-,�,i��= 1 4�4yD. _ _ �„r. ... -,' ^.. 1,04 -St - __ S.i .�",��,.. F�'s }r' ''"'F3.` s't'`ems..: a -'"'`+ � :x'w��,y �•:�s,.= .y,,.� i't` a'F. ._ _rr , "w P. p • Information Series No. 62, 1992 s: R,T iTv G NEW CONS.''RUC l'lON PROTECTS I ?IISTCRIC "SEAS The design of new construction in a historic context is a subject that so- licits passionate opinions from everybody—architects,neighborhood activists, developers,property owners, even the supposed casual observer. Consequently, it is not surprising that new construction projects in locally designated historic districts continue to be among the liveliest, and most challenging applications that preservation commissions review. Reviewing New Construction Projects in Historic Areas: Procedures for Local Preservation Commissions was first published in 1986 by the North- east Regional Office of the National Trust. The purpose remains the same: to encourage responsible,rational decisions by providing preservation com- mdiissions an outline of the basic documents and procedures that are essen- tial to the public design review process of new construction projects in historic districts. In 1986,there were an estimated 1,200 locally designated historic districts in the United States; six years later,that number has grown beyond 1,800. The same six year period has seen a gradual decline in the number of new construction projects in historic districts which reflects the national eco- nomic climate.This does not mean,however, that preservation commis- sions, especially those that may be reviewing new construction projects for the first time, are finding these decisions any less difficult or complicated. In addition to a new set of illustrations, there are minor variations worth noting between the 1986 and the 1992 versions of Reviewing New Con- struction Projects. The 1992 version encourages communities to revise the basic documents,i.e., surveys,preservation plans, design guidelines, and or- dinances,that govern historic districts. Many locally designated districts are entering their second, third,perhaps even fourth stage of development but the documents are woefully outdated and do not reflect the districts as they now exist. The resources that are available to preservation commissions have grown_ and/or strengthened considerably. The Certified Local Government pro- gram (CLG)is one example of an organizational resource that has impacted the establishment and operation of preservation commissions in many states. Technological resources such as the video taping of an entire dis- 111 trict, computer imaging, or computer mapping systems are being used or at least considered by a greater number of preservation commissions. _ \c__On. -- - -o_ . js �,' . _" ` , _n 4, { • Preservation commissions review a range of design solutions for new _ ys DAA.�,. *` i' f+;..,.. construction projects in historic i •r- ~.� Y"":t'tom' '' .-`'� Y _, settings. The New York City .: ^� .: �s a., �� x Landmarks Preservation Commis- - f r i :, rr. r -- ._^:-- �r -:-- ... 3r .�-.c� = si_=- .'tea..'.�f bdyr• [ � y�'- Y�r• '' •!. sion approved the reconstruction of _ fl. '' Se at f-1 _ -' Yeal.oj k'`T,< c .+�'�st�ns �( •p•.� , P a row house 27 Tompkins Place Yet F v- - - q f Tt�'"'.5, +:. in the Cobble Hill Historic District �*�•� i - '� `�' x ;,;r0 1. : ', in Brooklyn. The original " '3•-, -� L: _-_- �ti_ x k�ti. . ": 'r•: y structure ^f�;4_••`- - s' -- _-: i -.. M--3� •. .2-• was destroyed by fire and reconstruG °'V �' - - .� 6 -� Iry= --x'� fir- Tit--=_ 7:._ y•r b v - . . Lion was considered the best solution ,< '- '� _ ' _-_ -_ � X to maintaining the continuity of the ' `r t.-n• �, !' ri s ;='1 r` j ;3 L streetscape. The new structure is a - ...r I - - _- ' two family condominium. Architect - _- J-== �.I -�-1`test .r,v_ Ill , `'s = 7. DiFiore, Giacobbe Associates : ''"" :;= . �' - _ _.:- —_• I _='__- ;- %`�` -y+1► -75r �,.n _ - -_srirc=___ za---_s - '. _ r 1 , - ""i' — --iv k _ -_a es These developments as well as other factors suggest that the 1990s will be progressively active and challenging years for preservation commissions in their capacity as reviewers of new design in historic districts. There will be a greater melding and coordination of the oftentimes overlapping if not con- flicting functions of preservation commissions and other municipal plan-. ning and zoning boards. This will expedite the application and review process,make it more understandable to the public, and hopefully,relieve many preservation commissions of being held solely accountable for new construction decisions in their communities. Although the number of districts will continue to grow, albeit at a slower pace, organized opposition by property rights groups to both the designation of additional districts and the administration of existing districts is also likely to grow. This could discourage new construction in those districts that are perceived as being unstable or threatened, or inhibit commissions from regulating anything beyond minimal design standards. There are many reasons why a local preservation commission should oper- ate as professionally as possible,regardless of how long it has been in exist- ence,and this publication is intended to benefit commissions of varying experience. The steps and procedures outlined offer a basic guide for newly established commissions. They also serve as a checklist for seasoned com- missions to measure performance and identify areas of their review process E • i The same New York City Land- _ '- \' i marks_reservation Commission ?•, _ ,: — approved the glass-roofed conser- ==(um��j• •.i,,.1. tJ'!:�' .r _ - - --- - -- vanct or garden court that con- 4=� ;� h _ nects the Italianate brownstone F ot•Zi N�:,, `, . Z w E • j mansion built in 1852 for I.P.Mor- J .i� ^�� J :..:n _ .q ` / I ^• i OQnr Iry with the Pierpont Morgan F •� ,' Library and annex:, designed in I + j.. `"- �,s'_ }! - , -- 1906 by Charles F. McKim and in 0 ,,o` , -F 5.1• � I�3 �I -,-� t 1928 by Benjamin tit%istar Morris, '• respectively. The Madison Avenue ': may. r F , J �.,..„ p 3 i, �1 `atecol `a i �e i ,.,:a,..„,...,., j i I 1 ' , a r i } } elevation was among the materials o'. + ( _ ul reviewed b��the commission when " making its decision. Architect: . �: i. voorsanger&Associates. ti ` Icy ' - y ' sass '' if .4•C� R.,C• 1J'' �-_ �i (yam i ,_, ry rt ,JS!___. ._ .+If. F" - - I�l' f ic — = ::51� Y ,�-may _ t" :air 1.7 �� f E e'It r "� ' �r' - : ail i — aka 4,i,sk i.j :ftr .IS t ..v...... El A building-by-building map of a . strict is a necessary andeasily N\ / 1 n understood tool for illustrating �/ I ch things as building signifi- I -� ., it �'' ce, condition, age, current use, r ;P , , ', I I 0 onmg,and vacant land. In addi- I. tion to a series of maps, the Whole- ! ) __ 11,,-.-=1 i Ir 0 sale District Historic Area Plan for I '`_ ' - ' Indianapolis also includes dia- II I , i o ;I -� i•1C= ...f E :,M_-; grams that illustrate the develop- . l'!,-_. w-r—,:_q ...__-r able envelope for vacant land in the F. � district. The plan explains that the I •; 1 I I�, -- 1 WHOLESALE diagrams do not indicate appropri- _ DISTRICT ate building shapes but rather,the = :egg lI ! .4014.1410.01.16. allowable maximum massing and = : ®! II--- ,� . „ height of infill construction. iJ Iv euuamo sio.um..c. '• UN O. Si Al IOt. -i- n G«.vw�e, n-=� 7,7 i_. I -- J I I �� -I i \.„.= 41 ///4104:: I 11';111:'11.//, // V ,./ III qr ' jil!I 'III %�/ �� •I��III III �- i ::-''''- that need improvement. The recommendations take into account the wide discrepancy in resources that are available to commissions. For example, some commissions are assisted by support staff;however, many still operate with little or no staff. In some cities and towns, a sizable design community exists while in others it does not. Despite their differences,most preservation commissions share a desire to improve their expertise and effectiveness. The recommendations that fol- low will help commissions make decisions on requests for new construction but they do not and cannot provide absolute solutions. Every request for new construction in a historic district is site specific, and what was success- ful in one location can be a disaster in another. The challenge for preserva- tion commissions is knowing how to make the judgments that will preserve the distinguishing characteristics of the district while allowing expressions of change and adaptation. C Design Review: The Essential doDocuments Basic operational tools and procedures are essential if commissions are to give a thorough and fair review to applications for new construction and if applicants and the public are to understand the process. These are the same • for both new construction and rehabilitation projects and include a survey or inventory, a preservation plan,an ordinance, design guidelines, and ad- ministrative procedures. The Survey:Documenting Your Historic Resources The survey documents the resources in a historic area. Through written descrip- tions and photographs,it records information on all buildings and sites such as their age,style,type,and condition,and on other visual elements such as open space,vacant lots,vistas,street and landscaping patterns,and sidewalk and fence materials and design. The survey identifies the distinguishing characteristics and special arualities of the area and helps determine district boundaries. It forms the basis for the preservation plan and the design guidelines under which rehabilita- tion and new construction projects are reviewed. Survey methodology is important because the results will have both imme- diate application to the documentation of existing conditions and long-term application to proposals for rehabilitation, demolition,the moving of struc- tures, and new construction. The cohesiveness of a historic area depends on many factors including those buildings and sites that individually may lack distinction but collectively support the broader design and cultural features NDof the area. The method for collecting data should accommodate these fac- tors because the survey results will influence decisions on the alteration or demolition of buildings. For example, surveys based on a ranking system tend to make buildings and sites that are collectively rather than individu- ally important to a district expendable and,therefore,vulnerable to demolition. The preservation commission will refer to the survey forms,visual records, and base maps frequently. The information should be available to the pub- lic and will be of particular interest to property owners in the area. The survey information should be regularly updated as well as incorporated into a citywide data base. If a survey did not originally identify the location of vacant,buildable lots in a district,this should be included in an update. — For districts in which there is mounting pressure for new construction, a supplementary survey of vacant lots may be advantageous. The Preservation Plan:Defining Your Goals A preservation plan provides a descriptive overview of the historic area and outlines the philosophical goals and the recommendations for its preserva- tion and development. It should be based on an analysis of the survey re- sults, other planning and zoning regulations for such things as traf=i c and parking,use, density and new development,and input from property owners and residents. The plan need not be lengthy but should include clear, con- cise answers to the following questions. • El There are two locally designated _ n' districts in Breckenridge, Colo. as — = " ' shown in the map on the right. The - oonservation district embraces the _ re area of the older part of town = _ r_ /_ d serves as a transitional zone as t distinguished from the historic dis- _ „i-'rt r " �. tract which contains the greatest '� rf� `'S".-.,.- ;- \ - ✓� { ', \ // concentration of historic structures. Yes/' -rL'�`� \ ,\.,. . �*"^'�f i� \\•C' ✓ Design review is applied to all �/ 7, :v � 'y'"1 -/' _ _ , projects in both districts but new — `�� —' ? �1° _ construction EEE ---i 1 �� _ �� the Handbook of Design Standards �- --- LocalLEGEN Historic District Boundary National Register Historic District boundary for the Historic Conservation Dis- -_� i---�\ Conservation District boundary tricts. In addition, as shown in the ' map below,the districts have been subdivided into character areas a_q,.,KKT1 �--i. - 7....i.... and design standards have been _ .__ I . .,1 --_ _:, printed in a series of separate -: k booklets for each area. _ 7 1 /` - RSenyy TS o"u' �•;"1' l- ' ' a yE s / a — 7' Tr l� F - aF.y _ LECT ,,, IU HOH, au,. I t PJ coul,{.HyK�"��i _=—'`„ ,[. _ 1 STa "'" ,.,iuI - RI OonE II siGEET Eyo � ' I __--1/a.::,l eTaEEY. r+ - ,-----,' t(q HOH u.,TH w I TH.Ws,i.oH ; _ -- i E, RI HIeeH PINK{-yews�^ _ ! •What is significant about the area? • What are the physical characteristics and the special qualities that make it significant? •What do we want to preserve? Determining how to maintain historical and architectural integrity is prob- ably the greatest challenge when defining the goals for a historic area. The I complexity of the task increases as the opportunity for new construction in- creases in a district.For example, a goal may be to preserve the image of the area as unchanged as possible;to preserve the integrity of the district while allowing change;to create a sense of continuity that does not exist at present; or perhaps a combination of these approaches. Defining the goals raises other questions. •Is visual compatibility more important than authentic representation of i the evolution and change of the dis4ict? 5 •Does imitative architecture distort or enforce the goals for the district? 1 •Does the volume of new development threaten the integrity of the district? E •What is the long-term potential for new construction and what will the I impact be? I L j !I I 1 It is essential that these questions be answered because they give needed di- rection to applicants, designers,and preservation commission members when considering new construction and rehabilitation projects in the area. it'', A plan also should recommend ways to achieve its stated goals. As an ex- ample, the survey of a neighborhood identifies a concentration of significant residential structures ringed by vacant lots and buildings similar in scale but altered and of mixed use. The plan might recommend that the core be des- ignated a historic district with explicit guidelines for the rehabilitation of existing structures,and that the outer area be designated a secondary zone with guidelines that focus on new construction and more lenient rehabilita- tion standards for existing buildings. This particular example addresses the ; edges of historic districts, an important but frequently overlooked issue when historic districts are designated. Once again, the preservation plan for a historic district should be coordi- nated with other planning departments and updated periodically not only to . reflect changes in the district but also to redefine the goals and objectives if appropriate. 1 The Preservation Ordinance:Your Legal Mandate The local preservation ordinance is the legal mandate for the designation of New construction in a historic dis- historic districts, the establishment of preservation commissions, and the trict is often tied to a request for adoption of procedures for administering the districts. It should include the the demolition of an existing strut- following provisions that are particularly relevant to new construction: ture. Some preservation commis- j sions will not consider demolition 1 •approval of new construction,both additions and free-standing buildings; requests unless a replacement • approval of new construction projects that is not contingent on replication project is also presented for review. soof specific architectural styles; This line drawing of the one-block • approval of alterations or demolition of all buildings in a district, Blakemore Conservation Zoning 1 regardless of age; District in Nashville, Tenn.,shows • a demolition clause granting a commission the right to deny demolitions the conceptual design for a low- or, at the least, to delay them; scale office building in a row of • a clause that defines minimum maintenance and demolition by neglect; early 20th century residences that • a requirement that demolition requests include future plans for a site; and have been zoned as a Commercial i • a clause that requires archeological investigation at least on historically nUD with a historic overlay,and significant sites if not all new construction sites. adapted for retail and office use. Based on this drawing, the Metro- 1 An ordinance may list detailed criteria and procedures for reviewing applica- politan Historic Zoning Commis- tions including new construction or, after outlining the general purposes Sion granted the demolition of a and functions of the district and the commission,it may refer to a separate bungalow which was considered of document or documents detailing guidelines and procedural standards. marginal architectural merit and The latter approach allows greater long-term flexibility primarily because in which was adjacent to a vacant lot. 1 \i - - F H " " ' J y El -Y„ F Line drawings are an effective way of illustrating the streetscape and ~� building characteristics of a dis- 'ct. The facade elevation shows G:I l<Rht TYPICAL UPFFR FLOOR pecific commercial streetscape T N w - xcn.wIt„ CL11LpNG HEIGHTS. CF CORNICES. 5tL1PE. 5*-IALL WINDOWS. Telluride, Colo. I- ^,)) In districts where there is greater �' —w 11 1 E! j4 '� r1_- ; ti variety,isometric block drawings i I _. , ,j r ._ a can be useful. The !!�u guidelines for illustrate a typical • FKSr FLOOR f'IOLDINC•s FLOOR I9 RECES.SED Galveston, , AR' ALIGNED. -_-- IFIRST CetN.TR/VNWARfKT tmitnna.5. block in the historic district and include a conceptual drawing of a new primary structure inserted in the block. Sources:Design Guidelines for `1r Y I Buildings in Telluride by Winter& �- ! 4. Company and the Telluride Corn- /, ` munity;and Design Guidelines for �jy ��4.'.10 i, I the Historic Districts in Galveston, �` '` , -: •' 61 •* Texas,by Ellen Beasley. ., ~�r �• NEV ''''' ' '7' 01144 , irximARy sr.eucru. : � , 5/M/LA K 5114PE /ram ONE 174 W.1,5ZY ,eANC= ALTHOUGH 7W0 1./V/N6 ua/r5 50LA.0 `aLLcC70.e5 ///DD6N TEE�T _ Mh/N E'NT/Y/ALC5 57,CcE7- `c 6�r- e&tc 7Y77/CAL most communities the political system makes it difficult to amend an ordi- nance. If separate documents are used, they should be prepared as soon as an ordinance is adopted. The Design Guidelines:Adopting Your Standards Design guidelines are written standards against which applicants should measure planned projects and preservation commissions should review them. The guidelines analyze those Qualities and characteristics high- lighted in the survey that should be preserved and restored in rehabilitation projects as well as respected when new construction is proposed within the area. They provide a common body of information for all participants in the review process. - For the purpose of reviewing new construction, the guidelines should iden- tify and illustrate the basic design elements,not style-specific, that establish the character of the area. The guidelines also must indicate the relative sig- nificance of these elements. For example,in a historic district composed of late 19th-century brick row houses, all similar in scale and style, the most significant elements may be the basic building volume, street alignment, and material uniformity. The overall homogeneity of the area is more n w-4-:� - r 1 r f The eight-story Olympic Block was _- _Y = - .- built on a central,highly visible '�1 '�" - ',z - t corner in Seattle's Pioneer Square -,&r Preservation District and was part '� Jgr1 of a historic rehabilitation tax _ credit project that also included ;= the rehabilitation of the adjoining '' historic structures(foreground). __ 3 r'• i�pp The project, which went through e .. .., ;;.:, ;,.- •',_. multiple-layers of design review on On ala . •te•r•• :-• the local and federal levels,gener- 1' ± C1 } 0'f$Z_ v..... „ ' ' • ated considerable public interest. ' !�a lit • .� " _ It is a mixed-use project with resi- __ '.3?'j?'1 tyi 11 V `�r-i i•_._ . _ I, dential usage on the two highest _x, ' < < floors.Architect Hewitt/Olson/ '"_ *, rlr Walker/Daly/Isley. F _ :fi "'. + - . ' ,.. I-. . ! jr . .- . ---- . ,-.. . , t. IP! l'-'--f----4$4*-':'7 urr..".-.' . „of .i-'r `-� ' _ - ,;lip• • 1.4. . iX-r- - - rr -s .2 - .• .e - fly' �t ,w 0?..... , l.^- ----- •' *7,- , important than individual buildings. The guidelines for such an area should state clearly that these elements must be the primary consider- ations when designing and reviewing infill projects. New construction guidelines should stress the importance of context,including the relationship of a proposed project to abutting buildings and side streets. If characteristics differ within the district itself,the guidelines should indicate that the design standards also vary from street to street. The guidelines should re- quire an applicant for a new construction project to document the context of the proposed work in submission materials;the preservation commission,in turn, must be familiar with the design standards and any variations within the area Design guidelines for a historic area should not dictate certain styles for new buildings unless one of the goals for the area is restoration to a specific time period. Most districts,however, exhibit an evolution of architectural styles and cultural trends including the 20th century. Therefore, guidelines that emphasize context and design elements,rather than styles, allow the broadest and most flexible interpretation for new construction. Participation in the development of design guidelines is an instructive exer- cise for a preservation commission because it requires close scrutiny of the area. Someone with expertise in visual analysis must be involved, such as an architect who is a member of the commission,a staff person, or a con- sultant.The resulting document should be simple, graphic, and easily un- El derstood by the general public as well as design professionals. Commissions and communities with greater resources may wish to use computer graphics to develop their design guidelines or have a scale model built of the historic district. Y • The design guidelines for a historic district should be reassessed on a regular ba- sis. For example,many districts begin as residential areas but uses gradually shift to commercial and office activities. New construction is of a larger scale than originally anticipated and yet the guidelines still apply to a residential district. • Commissions participating in the Certified Local Government program ' through their state historic preservation offices or administering local his- toric districts that also are listed in the National Register of Historic Places and that contain income-producing properties or Community Development Block Grant and Urban Development Action Grant target areas should be familiar with The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Certain projects,primarily additions to historic structures, may require re- view by the local preservation commission, the state historic preservation office,and the National Park Service of the Department of the Interior. Some state historic preservation offices require that communities in the Certified Local Governments adopt The Standards as part of their design re- view process. The Standards include very broad guidelines for new con- struction but do not address the individual characteristics of local historic districts. Consequently,they should be used in conjunction with,but not in place of,guidelines written for the specific local situation. Design Reviews: Administrative Procedures 1 Both the preservation commission and applicants for new construction projects will benefit from a detailed set of procedures for administering the review process. These include a step-by-step outline of the review process, submission requirements for applications, and a system for maintaining the commission's records. Many commissions distribute brochures to explain the process. Administrative procedures should include a system for public notification through local newspapers and posting commission meetings in the city or town hall. The Design Review Schedule The review process for new construction projects varies from community to community depending on the division of responsibilities among city depart- ments. The schedule for the review procedure and related activities such as building and special use permits,zoning changes, and the appeals process should be outlined. For each phase of the review process, the applicant should be informed of the department to which application is made, the de- cisions and actions to be expected at each level, and the time frame. If some decisions are made by staff,this should be explained. 10 The Submission Requirements Commissions must remember that their decisions will be based entirely on what is presented verbally and graphiral ly by applicants and that the submission pro- cedure must require enough information to make fair decisions. The require- ments should be tailored to the design resources available in a community as well as the scope of specific projects. For example,a scale model may not be a re- alistic requirement in a town with no design professionals nor would one he nec- essary for minor rear-lot buildings. The recommended minimum submission requirements for new construction projects are: •written specifications including measurements; •photographs of the site and its surroundings including side streets; •facade elevations; •primary street facade elevation(s)superimposed to scale on a photograph of the streetscape; •material samples including a sample wall on location;and • color samples if this is a design review responsibility. Ideally, submission requirements for new construction in historic areas also should include: • a complete set of plans and elevations; • scaled drawings including street elevations that show the proposed struc- ture in context and all facing streets;and • a scale model in accurate colors showing the proposed building in context. M _ The Visual Laboratory of the Historic Preservation Program at . - the University of Vermont assists 4. a government agencies,preservation commissions, and citizen groups in '" • % assessing the visual effect of pro- __._ _. _ _ _ posed projects through the use of - accurately scaled simulations of S. : landscapes,rural villages, and even •P .`\. portions of the cities. In the ex- . at, f = r s - ample shown,planners and citi- f`� w " j zens in the Village of Williston Vt. s '. z- . - -' were able to visunli7e the impact of --- ".. -:-y.' - %; t. `....,.b.._ :_ a commercial development on the town's rural setting. F 4f- .:Try" -`<'� v _ kx 4. ,- ` =Y" El �,r- New construction projects in the Y historic setting may have to satisfy --- more than one set of design star- rds. The twelve houses and • -• ; mmunity Building built by the ,-9 - _ using Authority of the City of `� `� '�` pis ri .- "',- - -tom Yuma(Ariz)and financed by HUD through the Low-Rent Public Hous- ;�+-''j - - , N r'f "'• ,, 1 �' j. 4 ing Program,are located in the - = ',_ems Y IF �. ;: Century Heights Conservancy Resi- _ -- -�- a • dential Historic District,a portion - e' '; =` -`" of which is also listed in theNa- - '' - tional Register. The project had to _ ,z, meet the design standards of both •- - -e., ` the local district and HUD which, - - ------- --- - -- - --- ---`- ``"=�" - •- '- among other things, will not allow porches on public housing projects. r The review process resulted in the _ -A :OKA.?; PLAYGROUND approval of a bzmgalow house type ; J rather than the adobe design that Z 1l was originally proposed and the in- .rf;h.; I I 1 I F- w clusion of"porchettes"on the front H �.,, I � n facades. Uniform setbacks and ❑ '"�"I"� front-street orientation for the ;� = H houses, as seen in the final site - . -! L•,.,.a:; R plan, were other changes that +� 1 evolved during the review process. nrK :MA $, e The complex received an Award of ' . 4�: -r. '' Merit from the_National Association • _ z.^�"' d ` mousing and Redevelopment Offi- \�I :-7 ----, ;,--,---, - -- .s.Architect HPL Architects. i) In communities where the resources exist, commissions should make the scale model of a district or computer graphics capability available to appli- cants. For example,if a commission has a scale model of a district that is large enough to make judgments and comparisons,the applicant would need to make a model only of the proposed building. Many commissions require a preapplication workshop or meeting with ap- plicants who are proposing new cons-auction projects. The project design is discussed on a conceptual level as are relevant planning and zoning require- ments. The applicant may display working drawings at this time. The pre- application workshop can help reduce confrontations that may occur at a formal review meeting when an applicant presents final drawings that the commission has never seen and that do not meet the guidelines. Preservation commission members always should study the site of a new construction project before any discussion. Some commissions make on- site visits to such projects with or without the applicants. It should be clear to all participants that no decisions are made during either preapplication workshops or on-site visits. The discussions in both instances should be documented. ri Record Keeping A well-organized system for keeping records and filing applications is im- portant to the smooth administration of a commission and directly influ- ences its ability to enforce decisions. Minutes should be taken at all meetings which,ideally, also should be taped. Descriptions of decisions should be clear and comprehensive. Approvals, denials and alterations as well as the date and the initials of the chairperson or designated authority, should be recorded on drawings and other visual materials. Each applica- • tion and related drawings should have a separate file folder. Before submitting materials,the applicant should understand what will be kept for the permanent files of the preservation commission and what will be returned upon completion of the project. An applicant should be able to supply duplicate copies of all the materials listed except a scale model which usually is returned. Design Review: Conducting the Meeting A thorough review of new construction applications largely depends on how commission meetings are conducted. Commission members should be businesslike,focused and attentive, and the commission as a group must understand its role as reviewer. Some commissions approve or deny projects without offering specific design suggestions whereas other commis- sions do. Most commissions are required to list their reasons for denying applications. Commissions should limit their discussion to those aspects of the project for which they are responsible and leave other issues of zoning and planning to the appropriate departments. It is important for the preservation commission to remember that the re- view process involves people and personalities as well as buildings. First and foremost, the commission represents a larger client—the public. As such,its primary responsibility is to make decisions that support and main- tain the goals and the standards of the historic area. The list of participants in the review process can include commission members, design profession- als,property owners,neighbors,builders, contractors, developers,preserva- tion organizations, support staff, elected officials,lawyers, and others. Viewpoints undoubtedly will differ,but in most instances, all participants are eager to reach a decision that is acceptable to everyone. The key is to keep communication lines open and leave room for negotiation. Applicants should know what is expected of them in their presentations. At the conclusion of the application reidew, all participants should under- stand the decision that has been made and the next step whether it be the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness,a building permit, or a reauest for design modifications. To ensure a thorough and orderly desip review meeting,commissions should ask three broad questions that will guide them through any application for new construction: I • Commissions often review projects t, that reflect a shift in use and scale _ _ 4 ;'',` • In an area. The Providence His- ,�_ 1, . ' h-�- -- ' toric District Commission re- i�' *'q siiewed two projects proposed by \ r• • :;� e . ; ifI . ;,ti drown University:a residential • ` ! .tt.� �`s• its f� '�, complex and a parking deck. Each ; • -� V, V'ii`�q�i `�E j of the proposed projects covered a dyi! �, -. • �e s' �t I. . city block in the College Hill His- ' %is;4 +", - r • < ' -•1 `' • f,•v District. The parking ,! , • •• ` Y r :`'• • •f` ,; toric Di deck :�`! f `� 2. `.y 'a- which is visible between the trees •\ r t•. f.'t �,`� o ` on the right of the photograph, . N t r i.ter r r • •t Y� 1;' ` r was built on a block that �z,•� ;` zt .` "7 "„'•-v... +.. y `—R was, at �� . � .,• -_ �:.��.- '"A .w�,w9�'''g one time, a tennis court and then 'l'^j j • + .. kitt e t..' i "'" � a surface parking lot. As part o f i «: f� r �' 1 the review process, the university -• � - ; accepted a deed restriction with ;; ii r T t the city that does not permit build- --' `- f . -� yam ing additional stories to the struc- '' ' ".' 1 X > .•r : tore. The residential complex '�� 1 v 1 ,ky , .�, r post-dates the parking deck. `- --• •,, t t o - +'Y ` �. The bay windows,intersecting = �{� - ,i. ,-- �`,-f - .-, '11 Qv*Lc ( , 4 , }. �_.f gable roofs, and yard space were =a++� �"`1 i'' l ,"-' '� au L m r: ' Al IT designed to suggest row housing _ , - ;.1 .1 - . ,. v� `; . and to complement the detached j : -"� "'' � = ` = ";� `- single family housing in the c • -- ''�•' neighborhood, an example of !' r. s` i �- 1 which is in the background. An 2 •; _ t i..ki interior courtyard provides public • . -- !,We \\ �, mace for the complex. Architect: c a,''- r • - 1 4 rking deck:Seymour Gage Also- .4 e - j dates. Architect:residential corn- - , a ; ;�.; a plea:Davis,Brody&Associates. - ' I ' _' ` -- .a i FC n,. n' .. r _ - - _ _ - _. _ i� Does Everyone Understand the Application? Before the commission responds to an applicant's presentation of a proposed project,all aspects of the application_should be clear to everyone. The requi- site visual and written materials should be prepared properly and provide enough information to determine the impact of the project on the district. There should be a consensus on the definition of architectural,technical and planning terms, and adjectives such as "compatible," "contextual," and "appropriate." Gift • Commission members frequently complain that a finished new construc- tion project looks nothing like what was expected. In many such cases, project files and documents reveal that design details were either unclear or unspecified. The commission should not hesitate to table or deny an appli- cation and request additional materials if it lacks sufficient information to make a decision. On occasion, commissioners may suspect that the appli- cant has deliberately obscured the intended design or materials. For ex- ample,a material sample may be"similar but not identical to the actual material"to be used. In such cases, the commission should request clarifi- cation even if it means delaying a decision. ' - Does the Application Meet the Design Guidelines? To judge whether an application meets the design guidelines for the district, commission members must determine if the project supports and maintains the stated goals of the district and respects the design elements that charac- terize the district. The commission should be sure that the appropriate de- partments have reviewed the project for compliance with all other zoning requirements such as geological and flood plain hazard areas,solar air rights, ' and off-street parking. Finally, the commission should evaluate the long term effect of the project on the district. Having determined that the proposed project fits the overall goals of the dis- trict, the commission should evaluate the project in terms of the larger de- sign features such as scale,massing and height,followed by a look at the details. Commissions often focus on the derails first,losing sight of the larger issues.This frequently reflects inadequate presentation materials that make it easier to visualize the derails of a project than to visualize the mass- ing or scale. Attention to details later in the review,however, should not be 6 overlooked:poor detailing and poor quality materials can compromise an otherwise well-designed building as many preservation commissions and communities have learned. This single-family, three-bedroom 1414F residence is clearly a new structure but maintains the scale and mass- f-=� ing of the adjoining primary strut- *- - # ,i.e • tares in the Old Northside Historic s.v 'Y- sT g: District in Indianapolis. Architect • l tt s -'•' - Woollen,Molzan and Partners. -+� ->_i., _'l.r.- E!E whit ij >` - _ .7 � 'r..� 1M • This sample design review checklist is based on Building • with Nantucket in Mind: Guide- SITE PLANNING ROOF lines for Protecting the Historic Architecture and Landscape of Siting of the Building: Shape(gable, lean-to, etc.) Nantucket Island. Use of a Setback Pitch checklist will ensure that the Facade width Overhang commission considers all the im- Spacing between buildings Dormers portant design elements that dis- Skylight tinguish the district in its review. Delineation of street space: Chimneys • of new construction proposals. Creation of continuous Checklists should be prepared street edge for each historic district because Separation of public, semi- WINDOWS public, and private areas these design elements vary. A case- checklist will help commission Fences Tune nt,etc.) members determine ifthe new ment,etc.) Garage placement Shape and proportion structure or development will Rhythm and balance contribute to and enhance the Landscape plantings Blinds/shutters long-term goals of the historic district. Site Improvements: Walkways DOORWAYS Driveways Retaining walls Placement and orientation Type (paneled, etc.) BULK,PROPORTION and SCALE (building size) EXTERIOR ARCHU.1,C- TURA L ELEMENTS Height Facade proportions Door platforms and steps Scale Porches Exterior stairs and decks Roofwalks and platforms MASSING(building shape) Mass of main portion: MATERIALS Form Roof shape Wall surfaces Orientation Foundation Roof Additions: Placement Form TRIM and MISCELLANEOUS Bulk DETAILS Trim Gutters and leaders Louvres,vents, etc. House lights Public utilities COLORS }�7 Et To organize and simplify the review of new construction applications, com- missions may want to develop a checklist of the design elements to be con- sidered and as specified in the guidelines. The checklist also should begin with the broader design features such as scale,massing and height, and then cover the details such as materials, openings and ornamentation. Following the applicant's presentation and the general discussion, the commission can study each element to determine whether or not it meets the guidelines. Using this method,the commission is more likely to base its evaluation of the project on the design standards than on personal opinions. Commission members and applicants alike can distinguish more easily between the design elements for which there is approval and disapproval. Items on the checklist should not be ranked or given quantitative values;they should be used to facilitate the review process and clarify decisions. Occasions will arise when commissions simply should deny a request be- cause it is obvious that the applicant or designer does not understand the district and that the proposed design will never meet the standards even with modifications. Too often, commissions try to redesign such projects, frequently with disastrous results. Instead, commissions should say"no" and encourage the applicant to start anew. Preapplication workshops will not eliminate these situations entirely but they will reduce them. What Is the Decision and Does Everyone Understand It? No application review should conclude until everyone understands the deci- sion as it relates to the design guidelines. Was the application approved as presented, approved with modifications,or denied? The commission should identify and describe any modifications so that the applicant understands which design elements to rework for the next review. If the commission de- nies a proposal,it should explain the appeals process to the applicant. Once the commission gives final approval to the design,it should outline subsequent steps in the review process to the applicant such as obtaining a building permit. The applicant should understand that any change in the approved design during construction must be presented to the commission. Any enforcement requirements should be stated clearly such as a time l;,,,;- tation on a building permit or when construction must begin. Finally, the drawings,plans, and other submission materials must be dated, initialed, and stamped with the decision. If there is a series of plans for a project, items that are not approved also should be stamped and filed to avoid confusion. 0 Design Review: Maintaining Professional Standards The successful review of any project by a preservation commission depends on several factors. In addition to having the basic set of operational tools and procedures in place, commission members must do their homework. Each member should review the survey, ordinance, guidelines, and proce- dures regularly. The commission should hold workshops to review deci- sions and policies, and to evaluate its performance. The discussions should include questions such as: 1. Do property owners,residents and the commission still agree on goals for =' the district as expressed in the plan or should these goals be revised? 31 2. Do all commission members understand the responsibilities of the commission or are they confusing them with those of the planning corn- mission or the zoning board? 3. Do the guidelines cover new or anticipated types of projects such as the construction of secondary structures as rental units,the development of buildings for mixed uses, or the relocation of historic buildings on va- cant lots in the district? 4_ What are the recurring problems and how can they be resolved? For example,the massing of new buildings may be out of scale with the exist- ing structures but politically, down-zoning is not an option. One solution may be to prepare more specific guidelines for treating the street level of new buildings. In another case,it may be necessary to work with other commissions and boards to resolve a conflict between present zoning and design and preservation objectives. As an example, matching the scale of 19th-century residences with the single-family zoning designation in a neighborhood may inhibit new construction or lead to poorly scaled single-family dwellings. If well-designed duplexes are more feasible both economically and architecturally, the commission may decide to sched- ule a meeting with the appropriate city and residential groups to outline the options. As stated previously, operational tools and procedures may need to be re- fined, updated or even revised to accommodate changes in the district. In fact,commissions should view this as stannard professional practice. Out- dated survey information and base maps that do not reflect improved build- ing conditions, additional vacant lots, or new construction not only can cause confusion when reviewing applications but also can result in poor de- cisions. If there are any procedural changes, the materials that are given to applicants should be revised and reprinted immediately. Clear and current documents and procedures will aid both designers and applicants and en- courage better design quality. In addition to regular assessments of their decisions and operation,preserva- tion commissions should define their role as public educator, a role that most commissions must assume. A commission can introduce many pro- s' grams depending, of course, on the resources available. These can range from scheduling a small workshop to discuss a particularly difficult issue ' 7s • -'"�i=-'..a.,'Q°-'•yT Y=fr4 t '`'tm � ""' "" y mow '.- =�_ _ -• Buildings that are threatened in _�-'.-�• their original location can be an- - ��s AN•7 other solution to infill development • e in a historic district. Most commis- r } =� --` - `= Y t r a sions apply the same design r es'gn stan- ,� • •°Y * - ,, ` _ �� , .`^�' T' dards to move-in buildings as to r F `" i ' , new construction in terms of their �' n � �� '''! •, relationship to the surrounding J " ! area. The four-square house in the 111 3 foreground was moved from the . site of a proposed university sports "Viarena to the Sherman Hill Historic ^: $ : 7M l District in Des Moines,Iowa. Built a as a duplex but converted to a tri- ".,. s•: ��, ' 7 _. plex, the house was reverted to a . -"` ;s_ '- §1 l .i. duplex when moved and is now ty* -- ems''*. •` �`i.. '�" T� w ).. as .,�:a • .,� .y - �=<-� F�. 'sP�w � { r, :� owner-occupied. trl�'� ti?��.a;a^s, ta 'rsst's..x�.5"s� �A r,' LTA P""�`*�y'."St"�y�y�C�'�•� -a�k...✓ f S � ..r - -7•• .WisvOit • with property owners in a district to planning a one-day, citywide confer- ence with speakers. Publications are essential and can be anything from printed design guidelines to simple xeroxed sheets that explain the function of the commission. The cost of the program is not important—what is im- portant is communicating with the public. Preservation commissions may find it both educational and reassuring to participate in statewide or regional workshops involving other local preser- vation commissions. These keep commissioners current on issues affecting local historic districts and build networks to exchange ideas. Many state historic preservation offices require that communities participating in the CLG program send representatives to such meetings. Lasting Decisions Workshops,preapplication discussions, design guidelines,and checklists of design elements, are techniques that contribute to the ability of a local pres- ervation commission to review applications for new construction projects in historic districts with confidence. It is most important for commission members to know the district and the characteristics that distinguish it as well as to define its long-term goals. Without an understanding and a con- sensus about these basic considerations,it is impossible for any preservation commission to deal properly with requests for new construction. In addition, a solid set of operational procedures is essential to a fair and or- derly decision-making process. Open communication and continuing edu- cation are necessary ingredients not only with the public and applicants but also among commission members. In smaller communities and those with limited resources, commission members themselves may have to initiate iwand prepare many, if not all, of their programs and materials. 19 ^ y The North Carolina Medical Soci- '�r 'a_ M _• ety requested demolition of the �� r-• ..;. building on the left located in the _ 7 =,`_ .4"` K t: 4�1 Oakwood Historic District in Ra- ^. ; �� '�. ` �, x . '' -7-,'` -, I leigh and proposed planting theRP 1 +r >tx.vp ;� ..,,'" vacant lot with trees. The Historic , ;a <1 ' �._• , " '1" '�.• '— District Commission's denial of the �•,. s_ .�ry� .. 5. request has placed a one-yearN:Ai i _ <- - demolition delay on the house. .< w - - 31 tom. The in fill project on the right was - l 3 ., • • ` built in 1985 for offices by the !a. f z �- ` `` - . North Carolina Beer Wholesalers ,- -, ,• • and was designed to be compatible i j 1 1 I, i 1 with the residential surroundings , - t -- • 1 including its next door neighbor. M ram_ .__ �._.-. �.. . - _ The Governor's Mansion is directly , - ---• • across the street from the build- ings. Architect of the infill proj- ect:Clearscapes Architecture PA. ° - -'--�w Even wh en all the tools are in place,reviewing applications for new con- I struction projects in historic districts is seldom easy. They are site specific and project unique:no two projects are alike, and rarely, if ever,is there one clear-cut solution. When reviewing new construction projects,a preserva- tion commission should remember that it is the impact of the design on the historic surroundings that should be measured first,followed by an evalua- tion of the individual structure. Equally important, a commission should examine each decision within the context of the long-term goals for the dis- trict as a whole because, once built,the decisions of a preservation commis- sion become an integral,visible, and lasting presence in the historic district. Acknowledgements 2 This publication was written and revised by Ellen Beasley,preservation con- sultant. The public design review process and the design of new buildings for historic settings have been among her concentrated areas of study and writings since the late 1970s. Based in Houston,Tex.,Ms.Beasley received a Loeb Fellowship at the Harvard Graduate School of Design and a Rome Prize in Urban Design at the Americ-an Academy in Rome. - Elements of the handbook were developed originally for a class that was organized by the author and taught jointly with Nore V.Winter,urban de- signer. Dwayne Jones,preservation planner of the Texas Historical Com- mission,was particularly helpful in preparing the revision. The author also wishes to acknowledge collectively all the people who provided illustrations for the revision. The illustration and architectural credits recognize only some of the groups and individuals who have been in- volved in the building and publication projects that are represented in this booklet. 6 20 a Select Bibliography Design and Development:Infill Housing Compatible with Historic Neigh- borhoods.Information Series No.41. Ellen Beasley. Washington,D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation. 1988,reprinted 1992. The publi- cation describes the preconstruction phase of the infill process and the vari- ous participants in a multi-layer design review process that includes a local preservation commission and a neighborhood association. The Edgefield Historic District in Nashville,Tenn.,serves as a case study. Available for $5.00 from: Information Series,National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue,N.W.,Washington,D.C. 20036. (202)673-4189. A Handbook on Historic Preservation Law. Christopher J.Duerksen, ed. Washington,D.C.:The Conservation Foundation and the National Center for Preservation Law. 1983. The chapter on"Local Preservation Law:Re • - viewing Applications for Demolition,Alteration or New Construction," will be of particular interest to commissions. Also includes "Recom- mended Model Provisions for a Preservation Ordinance,"with annotations by Stephen N.Dennis as Appendix A. Available for$30 plus$2.00 shipping and handling from: The World Wildlife Fund,Publications Handling De- partment,P.O.Box 4866,Hampden Post Office;Baltimore,Md. 21211. (410)516-6951. Saving Place:A Guide and Report Card for Protecting Commrnity Charac- ter. Philip B.Herr. Boston:National Trust for Historic Preservation, North- east Regional Office. 1991. The booklet is designed to help citizens of small and rural towns to identify and protect the characteristics that distin- guish their communities. New development is placed within the context of NDgrowth management issues. Available for$14.95 plus$2.00 shipping from the National Trust for Historic Preservation,Northeast Regional Office, 7 Faneuil Hall Marketplace, 5th Floor,Boston,Mass. 02109. (617)523-0885. A Design Primer for Cities and Towns. Anne Mackin and Alex Krieger. Boston:Massachusetts Council on the Arts and Humanities. 1989. The book serves as a guide for decision makers,both citizens and professionals, in the public design and planning processes. The Primer explains the impli- cations of design decisions and how various aspects of design affect plan- ning and development. Although written for Massachusetts,it is applicable to communities everywhere. Available for$15.00 from the Massachusetts Municipal Association,60 Temple Place,Boston,Mass. 02111. Old and New Architecture:Design Relationship. National Trust for His- toric Preservation, ed. Washington,D.C.:Preservation Press. 1980. This • book was one of the first major publications to address the issue of new de- sign in the historic context. The series of essays reflect a range of opinions and while some of the material may be dated, the basic issues remain the same. The book is out of print but is available in many libraries. Vacant Lots. Carol Willis and Rosalie Genervo, eds. New York:Princeton- Architectural Press and The Architectural League of New York. 1989. Ar • - chitects were invited to design infill housing for ten sites in older,mostly small-scale neighborhoods in New York. The published results, Vacant Lots, can serve as a textbook for anyone interested in infill design because othe examples illustrate a range of solutions for each site and test the reader's ability to read and interpret plans and elevations. Available for$24.95 plus $3.00 shipping(add 8.25 percent sales tax for New York residents)from Princeton Architectural Press,37 East 7th Street, New York,N.Y., 10003. Good Neighbors:Building Next to History. Colorado Historical Society. Denver:Colorado Historical Society. 1980. A step-by-step guide to help a community identify and define its distinguishing characteristics and write a set of design guidelines. Five Colorado towns serve as examples but the pro- cess is applicable anywhere. Although printed in 1980, the publication re- - mains one of the best on the subject_ Available for$4.95 plus$3.00 for shipping and handling from the Colorado Historical Society, Museum Store, 1300 Broadway,Denver, Colo. 80203_ Call(303)866-4993 for information and prices on bulk orders. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Washington,D.C.: U.S.Department of the Interior,National Park Service,Preservation Assistance Division. Revised 1990. The Standards include the Secretary's guidelines for new construction with an emphasis on additions to historic buildings. The Pres- ervation Assistance Division also publishes a series of Preservation Briefs including No. 14,New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings:Preserva- tion Concerns. Both publications are available through the Superintendent of Documents,U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,D.C.20402. The Standards is GPO stock number 024-005-01061-1, $2.00 per copy; Brief No. 14 is GPO stock number 024-005-01011-4, $1.00 per copy. Three national magazines,Architecture,Architectural Record, and P/A (Progressive Architecture),regularly publish articles featuring new design in the historic and/or urban context as well as annual preservation issues. Many libraries subscribe to at least one if not all three magazines. Organizational Resources The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions is a membership orga- ni7ation that provides information regarding historic preservation law,local ordinances, design review, and local preservation planning. It maintains a speakers'bureau and publishes the periodic Alliance Newsletter. For fur- ther information contact: The National Alliance of Preservation Commis- sions,Hall of the States,/!111 North Capitol Street,N.W., Suite 332, Washington,D.C. 20001. The National Center for Preservation Law maintains an active fife of legal issues pertaining to historic preservation,much of which relates to the de- sign review process. The Center interprets specific court cases and other subjects in a series of Updates that are available through subscription. For further information contact: The National Center for Preservation Law, 1333 Connecticut Avenue,N.W., Suite 300,Washington,D.C. 20036. (202)338-0392. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has seven regional and field of- fices that provide services to state and local organizations and individuals. These services cover all preservation activities including field visits, advi- sory assistance, conferences,and special projects on issues of particular con- cern to each region. The offices are listed on the back cover of this booklet. The National Trust's Department of Law and Public Policy provides educa- tion and advice on preservation law and historic districts,zoning, monitor- ing of preservation litigation, and other preservation issues. For further information contact the appropriate National Trust regional office. The Preservation Assistance Division of the National Park Service conducts a variety of activities to guide governmental agencies and the general public in historic preservation project work. The office is responsible for develop- ing and disseminating technical information about specific preservation and rehabilitation problems as well as interpreting The Secretary's Standards. For further information including a catalogue of their publications, contact: The Preservation Assistance Division,Technical Preservation Services, P.O. Box 37127,Washington,D.C. 20013-7127. (202)343-9578. State Historic Preservation Offices(SHPOs)administer a variety of programs including the National Register program at the state level, state and federal grants programs, and the Certified Local Government program that provides assistance in the establishment and training of local preservation commis- sions. The SHPOs conduct regular workshops for CLGs as well as maintain a series of publications and audiovisual materials that are available to CLGs. For further information, contact:National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers at(202)624-5465, the CLG Program at the National Park Service at(202)343-9505, or the National Trust regional offices. - • _ _ `1 ,f -4, = Secondary structures are among It.. ...„ �`'`- �' �"; Y the types of new construction - -- : -04 projects reviewed by preservation �` _ . - ;,; it 'y' commissions. The"Design Services -4:` _ - Bank"offered by the Bozeman _,_� (Mont.)Historic Preservation Board -- assisted the owners of this 1889 ,. •• ,- I _� �, house in designing the detached ga- �. � ti4- = Vim : rage/workshop,shown on the left. - r The new building and driveway - _ _ t i- 7_ _ ' encroach upon the required 8-foot ' - a side yard setback but the review :' - u. C: "� board cars h. F ! } grant such zoning devia- _ A - tions providing in fill structures or - — - ., : = _ �, -. additions are considered reflective , > '�: K_ `'. ' - of the design fabric of the neighbor- -_ hood.Architect:Donald I r:-..-.,,.:= a : - McLaughlin- -- ,-•'dS Fr Support for the National Trust is provided in part by matching grants from the U.S.Department of the Interior, -`! National Park Service,under provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The opinions expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the U.S.Department of the Interior. =rf JOIN THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION NETWORK The Preservation Forum of the National Trust is a membership program for professionals and organizations. The benefits and privileges of membership include subscriptions to Historic Preservation Forum,Historic Preserva- tion magazine,Historic Preservation News,participation in financial/insurance assistance programs, technical ad- vice, and substantial discounts on professional conferences and educational publications. New Information booklets - are available free upon request. il To join, send$75 annual dues to: 1.1 z; Preservation Forum National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Avenue,N.W. Washington,D.C. 20036 (202)673-4296 Offices of the National Trust for Historic Preservation National Headquarters Northeast Office Texas/New Mexico Field Office 1785 Massachusetts Avenue,N.W. Seven Faneuil Hall Marketplace,5th Floor 500 Main Street,Suite 606 Washington,D.C. 20036 Boston,Mass. 02109 Fort Worth,Tex. 76102 (202)673-4296 (617)523-0885 (817)332-4398 (Connecticut,Maine,Massachusetts,New (New Mexico,Texas) Mid-Atlantic Office Hampshire,New York,Rhode Island,Vermont) Cliveden,6401 Germantown Ave. Western Office "adelphia,Pa. 19144 Southern Office One Sutter Street,Suite 707 5)438 2886 William Aiken House San Francisco,Calif. 94104 elaware,District of Columbia,Maryland,New 456 King Street (415)956-0610 ersey,Pennsylvania,Puerto Rico,Virginia,Viz- Charleston,S.C. 29403 (Alaska,Arizona,California,Guam,Hawaii, • gin Islands,West Virginia) (803)722-8552 Idaho,Micronesia,Nevada,Oregon,Utah,Wash- (Alabama,Arkansas,Florida,Georgia,Kentucky, ington) Midwest Office Louisiana,Mississippi,North Carolina,South 53 West Jackson Blvd.,Suite 1135 Carolina,Tennessee) Chicago,Ill. 60604 (312)939-5547 Mountains/Plains Office (Illinois,Indiana,Iowa,Michigan,Minnesota, 511 16th Street,Suite 700 Copyright©1992 Missouri,Ohio,Wisconsin) Denver,Colo. 80202 National Trust for Historic Preservation (303)623-1504 (Colorado,Kansas,Montana,Nebraska,North Dakota,Oklahoma,South Dakota,Wyoming; A 24 l� F.....„ .,_ . , . 'I.--..;::;••-..-Ire-9e*:- .""-;-.V4. I _ 7, F':Tus.-..s .F.4.-s.sat a -.- -ems- -i�'`"- ��- s "".,,.s ,.. . ..'hr,>_�� Y'' .p".L�F--p,^� tw-..:.....7 -_,�f. r Lr V._..1 zs r Y• ::. yc Nz r El� ( „,It: « c�s r '1.3,1}...„:„" ' , i'k- J, ±v��i'"..r` - t s g, .. y)� ry .. 2sc:X.i-f S _. ._ ..- . r�`' r k�'! '^ y: '.',�.` _:• sa !"el i• =v:'i .. sf. i E_ Information Series No. 62, 1992 1 R \TE-,W G NEW CON S i RUCTION Tin OTC " C. OR IC —r T A 5 ii1v)L.�lS t� v uL. �Z • The design of new construction in a historic context is a subject that so- licits passionate opinions from everybody—architects,neighborhood activists, developers,property owners, even the supposed casual observer. Consequently,it is not surprising that new construction projects in locally designated historic districts continue to be among the liveliest, and most challenging applications that preservation commissions review. Reviewing New Construction Projects in Historic Areas: Procedures for Local Preservation Commissions was first published in 1986 by the North- east Regional Office of the National Trust. The purpose remains the same: to encourage responsible,rational decisions by providing preservation com- missions an outline of the basic documents and procedures that are essen- tial to the public design review process of new construction projects in historic districts. - In 1986,there were an estimated 1,200 locally designated historic districts in the United States; six years later, that number has grown beyond 1,800. The same six year period has seen a gradual decline in the number of new construction projects in historic districts which reflects the national eco- nomic climate.This does not mean,however,that preservation commis- sions, especially those that may be reviewing new construction projects for the first time, are finding these decisions any less difficult or complicated. In addition to a new set of illustrations, there are minor variations worth noting between the 1986 and the 1992 versions of Reviewing New Con- struction Projects. The 1992 version encourages communities to revise the basic documents,i.e., surveys,preservation plans, design guidelines, and or- dinances,that govern historic districts. Many locally designated districts are entering their second,third,perhaps even fourth stage of development but the documents are woefully outdated and do not reflect the districts as they now exist. The resources that are available to preservation commissions have grown . and/or strengthened considerably. The Certified Local Government pro- I gram (CLG)is one example of an organizational resource that has impacted the establishment and operation of preservation commissions in many oilstates. Technological resources such as the video taping of an entire dis- trict, computer imaging, or computer mapping systems are being used or at least considered by a greater number of preservation commissions. - --ram--,! t - :- ,• - -1 • • Preservation commissions review a - .,�- ran e ofdesign - S solutions for newsismamansgenti LY` = .sa.•_ • • ..:fw-....,. construction * _- h--aY 1 projects in historic """� ;z � '; '" settings. k F e rp:P 4, ,_ , The New York City f •R, ,--. 1_r� , ,� ti� Landmarks Preservation Commis- tf i r `` a' ``�r fit-. .szf" '- '"i' �' • `'' may_- ---•i- 1 -: :-v_-�-i .H J r l„ i-:,r sion approved the reconstruction of _ ''a' ` -' �-.y=` '`" ;'•T. a row house at 27 Tom " 41 - pl.7ns Place *,� _ __Y 4 : S �� ; r r� In the Cobble Hill Historic • _ r • ,s: a_ .- or...., _ District ;ir ` 1 1:).=,,,+ — t N ( • ti:� ar. ..-• in Brooklyn. The original structure `y�„a •G`z = _ - Lz -}e =•sc 'ram:- . ,, '�_. --c�—_�..,- -_-, _ .� tin. fe .!�7 • was destroyed byfire and r - _ ma`s` tion was considered the best solution -`_ �_ - '" -'- - '.'�`=='� to maintaining the continuity of the n 3 "" -1- =- ., r -i , L s Y; streetscape. The new structure - • •�; ' two family condominium. Architect „�.0--- •m� . i s'-- r tr �"` DiFiore,Giacobbe&Associates. ` ' A- i. '': = y '' c ` -� - - _ 1 w 1 i ...ter _ _s3 1 ...4 .' --- S ' i. .. sz yT _ r` �_.�',+ -- - � r •'te-- I ' •.y -may =..:� j- ,r - c '^}'�'—, a �.._,— - „Yy.-y '. -7" �� 2 .:- �Y+ • :'Yd f. . �� r • E -n --- -- - fir` " '-rt,...-A..'.t r..w-fi' _'_/'�\ c . "... t9 . - _ � L�J\`- These developments as well as other factors suggest that the 1990s will be progressively active and challenging years for preservation commissions in their capacity as reviewers of new design in historic districts. There will be a greater melding and coordination of the oftentimes overlapping if not con- flicting functions of preservation commissions and other municipal plan- ning and zoning boards. This will expedite the application and review process,make it more understandable to the public, and hopefully,relieve • many preservation commissions of being held solely accountable for new construction decisions in their communities. Although the number of districts will continue to grow, albeit at a slower pace, organized opposition by property rights groups to both the designation of additional districts and the administration of existing districts is also likely to grow. This could discourage new construction in those districts that are perceived as being unstable or threatened, or inhibit commissions from regulating anything beyond minimal design standards. There are many reasons why a local preservation commission should oper- ate as professionally as possible,regardless of how long it has been in exist- ence,and this publication is intended to benefit commissions of varying experience. The steps and procedures outlined offer a basic guide for newly established commissions. They also serve as a checklist for seasoned com- missions to measure perfoiniance and identify areas of their review process E NIW — The same New York City Land- i marks Preservation Commission approved the glass-roofed conser- � ^s -! vancj or garden court that con- _ _ r'' nects the Italianate brownstone Z ir8ti... ' late. i .... 1 _ i--- J /� mansion built in 1852 for I.P.Mor- f r-- - r i gan, Jr., with the Pierpont Morgan r ; -le s ,-- : �. 1•' •1 ' ' _ Library and annex, designed m le 1, � ;x'y' ir5 Y , i , f i 1906 by Charles F.McKim irn and In y�,.-,-2 �= ' ems= 5 t i , I , --- ' -J 1928 brBenjamin T1'IstarMorlis ��yypi ,.... tom... `� t I r:-E , .� tfi�,{ , Ir i4 respectively. The Madison Avenue t�4 .a ` S�? oaa t ...,�'� eau ^; �11 I I 1 ; K,-1 _',-,--,- elevation was among the materials £ ��y � �• :,, : , ii 1 `�, i I 7' - reviewed bj the commission when �� 1 r•- ` mal;mglts decision. ArchitectJ �� I `I - i' ►%oorsanger&.Associates. • ---Atz !,-,...7-7p•:7.L.. 4----..,. .r.,..: ,, . ____1: :--r-_,...,;-,Z7 r:.... i-• . emu' a: °�i;_.',II r..- - .. t. may. x,,, i f .- �rf.�r I, E r p� ,a K. F i ✓� �•L P:- 1f "'F .,r,r-'�+. w Y w C r f= f� � ' �Ldt , fS _ r "R i4 --- `� . se �' -x ��, r _ (ter _-- -ke I E.,K.-i« t ter. "`;, _?�r-a ,f-cf_ 4 = .- ._.>r -a+�_..6,c s7 f -- -ice- t. x1 r. err . 4 /-' - �. it ,� r -. y F - _ • " .�fY+.s.• 1. .•...t- .ems _ E A building-by-building map of a district is a necessary and easily �^` \\y" 1.-- ; I 1 understood tool for illustratingJ. ch things as building signifi- d r� I I_ . l 1 I '-'--:,',' • ce, condition, age, current use, nin and va �I1.,..,_,.„... III I W g, cant land. In addi- , - tion to a series of maps, the Whole- — ii Il,,..=;i_ 1 1 EI sale District Historic Area Plan for - Indianapolis also includes dia- II 1 , 4 --- ; 1j; 1 .!!=''- --r-, . gams that illustrate the develop- ! '1 =:t:' -'1` 1�qi .- j . able envelope for vacant land in the district. The plan explains that the = [;;;!diagrams do not indicate appropri- _ ;� "_ WHOLESALE I _ - DISTRICT ate building shapes but rather, the = ,-' I Firminsil i i �';.,,t'°'K allowable maximum massing and = . I. @I• 1 ..f; ,,; ,,, height of mfill construction. �J r• building significance JN101. SS AI ION l- =....--, . -. I /i/� Cenvn.l.q - ' IL LiC:�u I �1. �1I a �' —tf I gi Ifl is /gin %�� i /i; II �ru/' that need improvement. The recommendations take into account the wide discrepancy in resources that are available to commissions. For example, some commissions are assisted by support staff;however, many still operate with little or no staff. In some cities and towns, a sizable design community exists while in others it does not. Despite their differences, most preservation commissions share a desire to improve their expertise and effectiveness. The recommendations that fol- low will help commissions make decisions on requests for new construction but they do not and cannot provide absolute solutions. Every request for new construction in a historic district is site specific, and what was success- ful in one location can be a disaster in another. The challenge for preserva- tion commissions is knowing how to make the judgments that will preserve the distinguishing characteristics of the district while allowing expressions of change and adaptation. • Design Review: The Essential Documents Basic operational tools and procedures are essential if commissions are to give a thorough and fair review to applications for new construction and if applicants and the public are to understand the process. These are the same for both new construction and rehabilitation projects and include a survey or inventory, a preservation plan,an ordinance, design guidelines, and ad- ministrative procedures. The Survey:Documenting Your Historic Resources The survey documents the resources in a historic area. Through written descrip- tions and photographs,it records information on all buildings and sites such as their age,style,type,and condition,and on other visual elements such as open space,vacant lots,vistas,street and landscaping patterns,and sidewalk and fence materials and design. The survey identifies the distinguishing characteristics and special qualities of the area and helps determine district boundaries. It forms the basis for the preservation plan and the design guidelines under which rehabilita- tion and new construction projects are reviewed. Survey methodology is important because the results will have both imme- diate application to the documentation of existing conditions and long-term application to proposals for rehabilitation, demolition, the moving of struc- tures,and new construction. The cohesiveness of a historic area depends on many factors including those buildings and sites that individually may lack distinction but collectively support the broader design and cultural features 10 of the area. The method for collecting data should accommodate these fac- tors because the survey results will influence decisions on the alteration or demolition of buildings. For example, surveys based on a ranking system tend to make buildings and sites that are collectively rather than individu- ally important to a di strict expendable and,therefore,vulnerable to demolition. The preservation commission will refer to the survey forms,visual records, and base maps frequently. The information should be available to the pub- lic and will be of particular interest to property owners in the area. The survey information should be regularly updated as well as incorporated into a citywide data base. If a survey did not originally identify the location of vacant,buildable lots in a district,this should be included in an update. — For districts in which there is mounting pressure for new construction, a supplementary survey of vacant lots may be advantageous. The Preservation Plan:Defining Your Goals A preservation plan provides a descriptive overview of the historic area and outlines the philosophical goals and the recommendations for its preserva- tion and development. It should be based on an analysis of the survey re- sults, other planning and zoning regulations for such things as traffic and parking,use, density and new development, and input from property owners and residents. The plan need not be lengthy but should include clear, con • - cise answers to the following questions. g There are two locally designated - _ _ _ districts in Breckenridge, Colo.as -� _ �= ' shown in the map on the right. The ---- _��r„.:;i . ?"""" conservation district embraces the - - -=� - ,,,z more area of the older part of town i / ;;�;r �/ / ,' —and serves as a transitional zone as - '',.,--_-:::::-1,- ,:'..,' -' ,.-: l "� r l distinguished from the historic dis- � :' .= ". -r _ / trict which contains the greatest - � , ,.� 4 V. uT,,, - . ' ✓!'tom" rr ! 1'1 concentration of historic structures. I. ;-�fi`� -- '-�` ✓_- Design review is applied to all ' `"- 1\1" �� 4 a�"' _ projects in both districts but new '" --li '___ r;1°..'�/� s , �_ �� construction criteria for the conser- " ` �-,i= �;R`� ,, i may; � �� vation district is broader than for • ; ' �`I -7-,-- the historic district as explained in �� - �' !. , LEGEND Y �� the Handbook of Design Standards --....,. �_" 1 .—. Local Hlslonc District Boundary .1 for the Historic Conservation Dis- l! nnn National Register Historic District Boundary IConservation District boundary tricts. In addition, as shown in the map below,the districts have been subdivided into character areas I4I..ST daE q,..�ST _ti -01. 1001 1- �� and design standards have been - _ 1�- -- - printed in a series of separate [ -- -- --'k booklets for each area. ,-. ---'-; - ...- RaLOFxrI. Tr4M5rr�--.. �---•—" 1101 SWAB NOSE TMRSrnprl\— ' ,1 „ ,... rt yW -- 11 — -, F/MORTH ERO RESNENyI— 1 � lam Err_--'•• 4 1h � i J ' j. . : Irl Op H REsanERiu ,' IWW • _ ._'.- 11 rJ 60 µ,�y�- ', i / —'\- - I -- rEr WIn aTREF: — — Rl!COSE EN _ ErAl t—••, uEl Romn fol.. I I TREIr51110s I , I PI RIVER PARK CORq.. ---_ x •What is significant about the area? • What are the physical characteristics and the special qualities that make it significant? •What do we want to preserve? Determining how to maintain historical and architectural integrity is prob- ably the greatest challenge when defining the goals for a historic area. The y complexity of the task increases as the opportunity for new construction in- creases in a district.For example, a goal may be to preserve the image of the area as unchanged as possible; to preserve the integrity of the district while allowing change;to create a sense of continuity that does not exist at present;or perhaps a combination of these approaches. Defining the goals raises other questions. ! 1 l •Is visual compatibility more important than authentic representation of T the evolution and change of the district? 1 •Does imitative architecture distort or enforce the goals for the district? •Does the volume of new development threaten the integrity of the district? •What is the long-term potential for new construction and what will the - ' i impact be? 111} ! i • - • It is essential that these questions be answered because they give needed di- rection to applicants, designers,and preservation commission members when considering new construction and rehabilitation projects in the area. A plan also should recommend ways to achieve its stated goals. As an ex- ample, the survey of a neighborhood identifies a concentration of significant residential structures ringed by vacant lots and buildings similar in scale but altered and of mixed use. The plan might recommend that the core be des- ignated a historic district with explicit guidelines for the rehabilitation of existing structures,and that the outer area be designated a secondary zone - with guidelines that focus on new construction and more lenient rehabilita • - tion standards for existing buildings. This particular example addresses the I� edges of historic districts,an important but frequently overlooked issue when historic districts are designated. Once again, the preservation plan for a historic district should be coordi- nated with other planning departments and updated periodically not only to reflect changes in the district but also to redefine the goals and objectives if appropriate. The Preservation Ordinance:Your Legal Mandate The local preservation ordinance is the legal mandate for the designation of New construction in a historic dis- historic districts,the establishment of preservation commissions, and the trict is often tied to a request for adoption of procedures for administering the districts. It should include the the demolition of an existing strut- following provisions that are particularly relevant to new construction: ture. Some preservation commis- sions will not consider demolition •approval of new construction,both additions and free-standing buildings; requests unless a replacement • approval of new construction projects that is not contingent on replication project is also presented for review. of specific architectural styles; This line drawing of the one-block IN • approval of alterations or demolition of all buildings in a district, Blakemore Conservation Zoning regardless of age; District in Nashville, Tenn.,shows • a demolition clause granting a commission the right to deny demolitions the conceptual design for a low- or, at the least, to delay them; scale office building in a row of • a clause that defines minimum maintenance and demolition by neglect; early 20th century residences that • a requirement that demolition requests include future plans for a site; and have been zoned as a Commercial • a clause that requires archeological investigation at least on historically PUD with a historic overlay, and significant sites if not all new construction sites. adapted for retail and office use. Based on this drawing, the Metro- 1 An ordinance may list derailed criteria and procedures for reviewing applica- politan Historic Zoning Commis- - Lions including new construction or, after outlining the general purposes Sion granted the demolition of a and functions of the district and the commission,it may refer to a separate bungalow which was considered of document or documents detailing guidelines and procedural standards. marginal architectural merit and The latter approach allows greater long-term flexibility primarily because in which was adjacent to a vacant lot. " !. -1 _�__ - tom t. E Line drawings are an effective way :<.l of illustrating the streetscape and building characteristics of a dis- "ct. The facade elevation shows r GENERAL L TYPICALUPPER flmK ecific commercial streetscape wrunrloN N nuGNMENT vwpov 50 lo,Vail _ Fp WILDING tiElGtTfS. of cef.NICES. SYNPE. `Y1�L!Y�MDLTl3. Telluride, Colo. �— 5 ) in districts where there is greater ""�' _ I E �� `!�� —Lill :_ .; 2 ,, variety,isometric block drawings .h { I _..] l� I .- . I I I can be useful The guidelines for t Galveston, Tex,illustrate guidelines typical rimsr FLOOR.MOLDINGS _Rsi r,.00R a Kp„,Ei, `yp• AKE ALIbNED. CPEN,TRM'S91RENL ENTR/JdCPS. block in the historic district and include a conceptual drawing of a new primary structure inserted in the block. `10 Sources:Design Guidelines for " i Buildings in Telluride by Winter& ! Company and the Telluride Com- '' Opt munity;and Design Guidelines for ;\ 'I�� ' the Historic Districts in Galveston, � ,�'r.' ::'AI` 11/ Texas, by Ellen Beasley. \ .. �'� '' / �1 r , . 101i44 -.'''''' NEW PR/MARy Srl?//crtigE: M . 5/M/Lfi R SAL,PE /i" - ONE Pi./NM, Y=/ ,eIi•NC= AL7HO:/GH TWO L/V/NG VA//r5 SOLA,C cpLL 6C7z4P5 H/DD /✓FeOM SreEE'r —1, Mh-/N ENTic'Y/54CF5 57,CE�7 e SEr-gAcr/f TYP/.AL most communities the political system makes it difficult to amend an ordi- nance. If separate documents are used, they should be prepared as soon as an ordinance is adopted. The Design Guidelines:Adopting Your Standards Design guidelines are written standards against which applicants should measure planned projects and preservation commissions should review ai-talities and characteristics high- them. The guidelines analyze those lighted in the survey that should be preserved and restored in rehabilitation projects as well as respected when new construction is proposed within the area. They provide a common body of information for all participants in the review process. For the purpose of reviewing new construction, the guidelines should iden- tify and illustrate the basic design elements,not style-specific, that establish the character of the area. The guidelines also must indicate the relative sig- nificance of these elements. For example, in a historic district composed of late 19th-century brick row houses, all similar in scale and style, the most significant elements may be the basic building volume, street alignment, and material uniformity. The overallhomogeneity of the area is more — ' • t .- ` '" - r • ) j The eight-story Olympic Block was built on a central,highly visible •- -' Y� .. t corner in Seattle's Pioneer Square Preservation District and was part 7 - of a historic rehabilitation tax =} }...1 _ ra= credit project that also included the rehabilitation of the adjoining --' historic structures(foreground). - "• • The project, which went through e s lim -em..., .�—^.�_, • •- multiple-layers of design review on r ,R L,- t ? sr'�F T :ter= : the local and federal levels,gener- -' :" -- ', ated considerable public interest. , 111121111 '.' �� ' It is a mixed-use project with resi- ' s#t{n - ',Vic ...._ •, dential usage on the two highest - , 5 Y yet;: floors.Architect Hewitt/Olson/ ,.:▪ i � '� +�• ]j� Walker/Daly/isley. , -. • - . , t f - _G .' 1 --• , 1- . 4/1 .- _,... :, rm. , , .i fe I. ''''''-! it%• - a - r C s _ { %ice• ; it A. _1.4.0 important than individual buildings. The guidelines for such an area should state clearly that these elements must be the primary consider- ations when designing and reviewing infill projects. New construction guidelines should stress the importance of context,includi v the relationship of a proposed project to abutting buildings and side streets. If characteristics differ within the district itself,the guidelines should indicate that the design standards also vary from street to street. The guidelines should re- quire an applicant for a new construction project to document the context of the proposed work in submission materials;the preservation commission,in turn, must be familiar with the design standards and any variations within the area. Design guidelines for a historic area should not dictate certain styles for new buildings unless one of the goals for the area is restoration to a specific time period. Most districts,however, exhibit an evolution of architectural styles and cultural trends including the 20th century. Therefore, guidelines that emphasize context and design elements,rather than styles, allow the broadest and most flexible interpretation for new construction. Participation in the development of design guidelines is an instructive exer- cise for a preservation commission because it requires close scrutiny of the area. Someone with expertise in visual analysis must be involved, such as an architect who is a member of the commission, a staff person, or a con- sultant.The resulting document should be simple, graphic, and easily un- El derstood by the general public as well as design professionals. Commissions and communities with greater resources may wish to use computer graphics to develop their design guidelines or have a scale model built of the historic district. is The design guidelines for a historic district should be reassessed on a regular ba- sis. For example,many districts begin as residential areas but uses gradually shift -- z to commercial and office activities. New construction is of a larger scale than originally anticipated and yet the guidelines still apply to a residential district. Commissions participating in the Certified Local Government program through their state historic preservation offices or administering local his- toric districts that also are listed in the National Register of Historic Places and that contain income-producing properties or Community Development Block Grant and Urban Development Action Grant target areas should be familiar with The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Certain projects,primarily additions to historic structures,may require re- view by the local preservation commission, the state historic preservation office,and the National Park Service of the Department of the Interior. Some state historic preservation offices require that communities in the Certified Local Governments adopt The Standards as pan of their design re- view process. The Standards include very broad guidelines for new con- struction but do not address the individual characteristics of local historic districts. Consequently, they should be used in conjunction with,but not in place of,guidelines written for the specific local situation. Design Reviews: Administrative Procedures 1 Both the preservation commission and applicants for new construction projects will benefit from a detailed set of procedures for administering the review process. These include a step-by-step outline of the review process, submission requirements for applications, and a system for maintaining the commission's records. Many commissions distribute brochures to explain the process. Administrative procedures should include a system for public notification through local newspapers and posting commission meetings in the city or town hall. The Design Review Schedule The review process for new construction projects varies from community to community depending on the division of responsibilities among city depart- ments. The schedule for the review procedure and related activities such as building and special use permits,zoning changes, and the appeals process should be outlined. For each phase of the review process, the applicant should be informed of the department to which application is made,the de- cisions and actions to be expected at each level, and the time frame. If some decisions are made by staff,this should be explained. i•D • The Submission Requirements Commissions must remember that their decisions will be based entirely on what is presented verbally and graphiral ly by applicants and that the submission pro- cedure must require enough information to make fair decisions. The require- ments should be railored to the design resources available in a community as well as the scope of specific projects. For example,a scale model may not be a re- alistic requirement in a town with no design professionals nor would one he nec- essary for minor rear-lot buildings. The recommended minimum submission requirements for new construction projects are: •written specifications including measurements; •photographs of the site and its surroundings including side streets; •facade elevations; •primary street facade elevation(s)superimposed to scale on a photograph of - the streetscape; •material samples including a sample wall on location;and • color samples if this is a design review responsibility. Ideally, submission requirements for new construction in historic areas also should include: • a complete set of plans and elevations; • scaled drawings including street elevations that show the proposed struc- ture in context and all facing streets; and • a scale model in accurate colors showing the proposed building in context. - The Visual Laboratory of the _ Historic Preservation Program at - the University of Vermont assists >> a government agencies,preservation commissions,and citizen groups in .le } assessing the visual effect of pro- ----___ ._-- - posed projects through the use of ,,- < ,: --- accurately scaled simulations of _ landscapes,rural villages, and even -.•' -.'� - portions of the cities. In the ex- .. ! "s ample shown,planners and citi- � '„s ` zees in the Village of Williston, Vt., y :I.. '= * "- -•- t "• ' Q' were able to visunli7e the impact of �*.` ,r- - .;t::.� - a commercial development on the town's rural setting. _ 1> a.�"�.13.-a yr ° �.4-,a %s....��".n.�, -' 4 i- Y-,A� New construction projects in the r t. historic setting may have to satisfy more than one set of design stan- tids. The twelve houses and : `` �-r mmunity Building built by the x-` i using Authority of the City of ;r '�' �+ �r� : = U,.. Yuma(Ariz.)and financed by.HUD . r a �x 4 i; P through the Low-Rent Public Hous- -1;'• ' ", r - ly t mg Program,are located in the • ��_ F.,r. _ .�/ h. Century Heights Conservancy Resi- _ `ti• -`' ..,, ... dential Historic District, a portion . :` r ram ?' - of which is also listed in the Na- Y -= .< - _' - • tional Register. The project had to '�s K . meet the design standards of both • r �r;� � ,' �? the local district and HUD which, - - -- ------ -- -== tr2' --- _` . ''- ' - among other things, will not allow porches on public housing projects. The review process resulted in the - "•rs .:: iY,�,yZ--'!',`i;;}`�';:? PLAYGROUND MOP. approval of a bungalow house type �. =-`�: __{w J rather than the adobe design that Z _M '•'r•• was originally proposed and the in- k,v w clusion of"porchettes"on the front -�• ""0% '<1.: I l� ! U facades. Uniform setbacks and z __❑ '`RK="G front-street orientation for the _ �` ;. . o a. ,. i� fiIiIII • houses, as seen in the final site -•!rfe4%f ,z; F plan, were other changes that m;; 9iN , evolved during the review process. o_ . n •>' The complex received an Award of J " "` •; Merit from the National Association = = k cousing and Redevelopment Offi- s.Architect HPL Architects. In communities where the resources exist, commissions should make the scale model of a district or computer graphics capability available to appli- cants. For example,if a commission has a scale model of a district that is large enough to make judgments and comparisons,the applicant would need to make a model only of the proposed building. Many commissions require a preapplication workshop or meeting with ap- plicants who are proposing new construction projects. The project design is discussed on a conceptual level as are relevant planning and zoning require- . ments. The applicant may display working drawings at this time. The pre- application workshop can help reduce confrontations that may occur at a formal review meeting when an applicant presents final drawings that the commission has never seen and that do not meet the guidelines. Preservation commission members always should study the site of a new construction project before any discussion. Some commissions make on- site visits to such projects with or without the applicants. It should be clear to all participants that no decisions are made during either preapplication workshops or on-site visits. The discussions in both instances should be documented. la Record Keeping A well-organized system for keeping records and filing applications is im- portant to the smooth administration of a commission and directly influ- ences its ability to enforce decisions. Minutes should be taken at all meetings which,ideally, also should be taped. Descriptions of decisions should be clear and comprehensive. Approvals, denials and alterations as well as the date and the initials of the chairperson or designated authority, should be recorded on drawings and other visual materials. Each applica- • tion and related drawings should have a separate file folder. Before submitting materials,the applicant should understand what will be kept for the permanent files of the preservation commission and what will be returned upon completion of the project. An applicant should be able to supply duplicate copies of all the materials listed except a scale model which usually is returned. Design Review: Conducting the Meeting A thorough review of new construction applications largely depends on how commission meetings are conducted. Commission members should be businesslike,focused and attentive, and the commission as a group must understand its role as reviewer. Some commissions approve or deny projects without offering specific design suggestions whereas other commis- sions do. Most commissions are required to list their reasons for denying applications. Commissions should limit their discussion to those aspects of the project for which they are responsible and leave other issues of zoning and planning to the appropriate departments. It is important for the preservation commission to remember that the re- view process involves people and personalities as well as buildings. First and foremost, the commission represents a larger client—the public. As such,its primary responsibility is to make decisions that support and main- tain the goals and the standards of the historic area. The list of participants in the review process can include commission members, design profession- als,property owners,neighbors,builders, contractors, developers,preserva- tion organizations, support staff, elected officials, lawyers, and others. Viewpoints undoubtedly will differ,but in most instances, all participants are eager to reach a decision that is acceptable to everyone. The key is to keep communication lines open and leave room for negotiation. Applicants should know what is expected of them in their presentations. At the conclusion of the application review,all participants should under- stand the decision that has been made and the next step whether it be the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, a building permit, or a request for design modifications. To ensure a thorough and orderly design review meeting,commissions should ask three broad questions that will guide them through any application for new construction: a ,! • • Commissions often review projects _ s;a, that reflect a shift in use and scale _ r r~ '�= in an area. The Providence His- , - toric District Commission re- ' , , JI: tt, T9 IRA s�iewed two projects proposed by \ • > c. �. •r• s3rown University:a residential ��" J` K,•` •• ?t u`•� 1 o'- 4 �: j�f' ' v of complex and a parking deck. Each ,'',_� <_ ;, t, �'v :®��. 1 i/t�/ }�•, of the proposed projects covered a V '� ;: <,L• �y �3. ; -.IL4/1 i , city block in the College Hill His- •j 4;I ;s y "; ,: _ ' `.1.;,.b , t'• . v tonic District. The parking deck, a �•: y which is visible between the trees °' ti _ ""tom. • ,��'' I"NI y s `r ri, ' i on the right of thephotograph, `_ •'_ " ` "v r r •, . kt .., ` 3: -.r r 1. „ was built on c that was,at \ <; _ - _ •ry _w K, 7? i one time,a tennis court and then Lr r f, 'y itj4e e •.4� ` *a'r• kin L4: t r� -. • ' +. .- . i' a surface a_ ` t:•' :•urf parking As part of i.- .' t,~^r -+,� ".-- ;,,. .--- -- 74t -- .,-�V -•- thereview process, the university " ;Yxr '-i 4 n accepted a deed restriction with z � :t,; iF: j ,91,. : •:' p the city ,'�. m , —.I • z , •.. y that does not permit build- , ' 11 • '- : 1. ing additional stories to the struc- - 7. 41'1 r • ` ;,4! .* 1 ; Lure, The residential complex - 'e i! 4> •- •j• :'us�-_ _+ post-dates the parking deck. ai _�Pr'`• ' The bay windows,intersecting _- ";Lat -:: =ter w t'-t gable roofs, and yard space were n�:us '- i ';a _ - ' i designed to suggest row housing — , OJT -t 1 i ,. ' V 1• -• and to complement the detached G. = �� ;' b =�*+ single family housing in the c� ��.:= _ -� neighborhood, an example of " f �'' { i; ' ` which is in the background. An ; _• `�-�' interior courtyard provides public = _ pace for the complex. Architect 7, . _ „ s . + *` _ irking deck:Seymour Gage Asso- 1 '' � `�_ crates, Architect residential corn- ? , -.g ��i; ` plex:Davis,Brody&Associates. - = 1 }+• � " , - .set s > _ -- / I Does Everyone Understand the Application? Before the commission responds to an applicant's presentation of a proposed project, all aspects of the application should be clear to everyone. The requi- site visual and written materials should be prepared properly and provide enough information to determine the impact of the project on the district. There should be a consensus on the definition of architectural, technical and planning terms, and adjectives such as "compatible," "contextual," and "appropriate." • Commission members frequently complain that a finished new construc- tion project looks nothing like what was expected. In many such cases, project files and documents reveal that design details were either unclear or unspecified. The commission should not hesitate to table or deny an appli- cation and request additional materials if it lacks sufficient information to make a decision. On occasion, commissioners may suspect that the appli- cant has deliberately obscured the intended design or materials. For ex- ample, a material sample may be"similar but not identical to the actual material"to be used. In such cases,the commission should request clarifi- cation even if it means delaying a decision. Does the Application Meet the Design Guidelines? To judge whether an application meets the design guidelines for the district, commission members must determine if the project supports and maintains the stated goals of the district and respects the design elements that charac- terize the district. The commission should be sure that the appropriate de- partments have reviewed the project for compliance with all other zoning requirements such as geological and flood plain hazard areas, solar air rights, • and off-street parking. Finally,the commission should evaluate the lonb term effect of the project on the district. Having determined that the proposed project fits the overall goals of the dis- trict, the commission should evaluate the project in terms of the larger de- sign features such as scale,massing and height,followed by a look at the details. Commissions often focus on the derails first,losing sight of the larger issues.This frequently reflects inadequate presentation materials that make it easier to visualize the derails of a project than to visualize the mass- ing or scale. Attention to details later in the review,however, should not be oiloverlooked:poor detailing and poor quality materials can compromise an otherwise well-designed building as many preservation commissions and communities have learned. This single-family, three-bedroom 1114F residence is clearly a new structure but maintains the scale and mass- ing of the adjoining primary struc- t tures in the Old Northside Historic =F- *,_ District in Indianapolis. Architect: Woollen,Molzan and Partners. MI MK NZ • E E E iUtu; ..:."ate-� � �`.'��.�`�,.� • This sample design review checklist is based on Building with Nantucket in Mind: Guide- SITE PLANNING ROOF lines for Protecting the Historic Architecture and Landscape of Siting of the Building: Shape(gable, lean-to, etc.) 1"'1 Nantucket Island. Use of a Setback Pitch checklist will ensure that the Facade width Overhang commission considers all the im- Spacing between buildings Dormers portant design elements that dis- Skylight tinguish the district in its review Delineation of street space: Chimneys of new construction proposals. Creation of continuous Checklists should be prepared street edge for each historic district because Separation of public, semi- WINDOWS public,and private areas these design elements vary. A case- checklist will help commission Fences Type(double hung, members determine ifment,etc.) the new Garage placement Shape and proportion structure or development will Rhythm and balance contribute to and enhance the Landscape plantings Blinds/shutters long-term goals of the historic district. Site Improvements: Walkways DOORWAYS Driveways Retaining walls Placement and orientation Type(paneled, etc.) BULK,PROPORTION and SCALE(building size) EXTERIOR ARCHITEC- TURAL ELEMENTS Height Facade proportions Door platforms and steps Scale Porches Exterior stairs and decks Roofwalks and platforms MASSING(building shape) Mass of main portion: MATERIALS Form Roof shape Wall surfaces Orientation Foundation Roof Additions: Placement Form TRIM and MISCELLANEOUS Bulk DETAILS Trim Gutters and leaders Louvres,vents, etc. House lights Public utilities COLORS • To organize and simplify the review of new construction applications, com- missions may want to develop a checklist of the design elements to be con- sidered and as specified in the guidelines. The checklist also should begin with the broader design features such as scale, massing and height, and then cover the details such as materials, openings and ornamentation. Following the applicant's presentation and the general discussion, the commission can study each element to determine whether or not it meets the guidelines. Using this method, the commission is more likely to base its evaluation of the project on the design standards than on personal opinions. Commission members and applicants alike can distinguish more easily between the design elements for which there is approval and disapproval. Items on the checklist should not be ranked or given quantitative values;they should be used to facilitate the review process and clarify decisions. Occasions will arise when commissions simply should deny a request be- cause it is obvious that the applicant or designer does not understand the district and that the proposed design will never meet the standards even with modifications. Too often, commissions try to redesign such projects, frequently with disastrous results. Instead, commissions should say"no" and encourage the applicant to start anew. Preapplication workshops will not eliminate these situations entirely but they will reduce them. What Is the Decision and Does Everyone Understand It? No application review should conclude until everyone understands the deci- sion as it relates to the design guidelines. Was the application approved as presented, approved with modifications, or denied? The commission should identify and describe any modifications so that the applicant understands which design elements to rework for the next review. If the commission de- nies a proposal,it should explain the appeals process to the applicant. Once the commission gives final approval to the design,it should outline subsequent steps in the review process to the applicant such as obtaining a building permit. The applicant should undersrand that any change in the approved design during construction must be presented to the commission. Any enforcement requirements should be stated clearly such as a time limi- tation on a building permit or when construction must begin. Finally, the drawings,plans, and other submission materials must be dated, initialed, and stamped with the decision. If there is a series of plans for a project,items that are not approved also should be stamped and filed to avoid confusion. • Design Review: Maintaining Professional Standards 4, The successful review of any project by a preservation commission depends on several factors. In addition to having the basic set of operational tools 1 and procedures in place, commission members must do their homework. Each member should review the survey, ordinance,guidelines, and proce- dures regularly. The commission should hold workshops to review deci- sions and policies,and to evaluate its performance. The discussions should include questions such as: 1. Do property owners,residents and the commission still agree on goals for • the district as expressed in the plan or should these goals be revised? $ 2. Do all commission members understand the responsibilities of the commission or are they confusing them with those of the planning com- t! mission or the zoning board? 3. Do the guidelines cover new or anticipated types of projects such as ^� the construction of secondary structures as rental units, the development of buildings for mixed uses, or the relocation of historic buildings on va- cant lots in the district? 1 4_ What are the recurring problems and how can they be resolved? For example,the massing of new buildings may be out of scale with the exist- ing structures but politically, down-zoning is not an option. One solution may be to prepare more specific guidelines for treating the street level of 4.› new buildings. In another case, it may be necessary to work with other commissions and boards to resolve a conflict between present zoning and design and preservation objectives. As an example, matching the scale of 19th-century residences with the single-family zoning designation in a neighborhood may inhibit new construction or lead to poorly scaled single-family dwellings. If well-designed duplexes are more feasible both economically and architecturally, the commission may decide to sched • - ule a meeting with the appropriate city and residential groups to outline the options. As stated previously, operational tools and procedures may need to be re- fined,updated or even revised to accommodate changes in the district. In fact, commissions should view this as standard professional practice. Out- dated survey information and base maps that do not reflect improved build- ing conditions, additional vacant lots, or new construction not only can cause confusion when reviewing applications but also can result in poor de- cisions. If there are any procedural changes, the materials that are given to applicants should be revised and reprinted immediately. Clear and current documents and procedures will aid both designers and applicants and en- courage better design anality. 1 In addition to regular assessments of their decisions and operation,preserva- 1 tion commissions should define their role as public educator, a role that most commissions must assume. A commission can introduce many pro- 3 grams depending, of course, on the resources available. These can range from scheduling a small workshop to discuss a particularly difficult issue =r,�Y ; ::, ` i-E-t. r w -t-74 - :'w..,' :� ! ti'_ Buildings that are threatened in -,-N r-.8 s ?., i _.-r '�f -v .mil z--- ^� . `� _-- . -'- r. _Y -4:4 ,�-y ,r :- - �. ,. their orio nal location can be an- r.,.; ,i 4 g 't' -ft.—' i`.T!"o i- Py other solution to infill development ; :,r� ?' o in a historic district. Most commis- 1:1 s , = =��"4 sions apply the same design star- -! ;s " - 1• it„f yr „.r .---- ,; .' Z`.•- dards to move-in buildings as to '., - • i ', z -ice ' _,� new construction in terms of their r '•• +� '' , 1 - $ "- .,,..' '*A , relationship to the surrounding r -I- ��j #<,�� »� ! , ..-pi. area. The four-square house in the : ,, �:s ". III , - i. foreground was moved from the , • � ,_ - n --��,_ site of a proposed university sports j' • • n arena to the Sherman Hill Historic j. .' + _ T District in Des Moines,Iowa. Built il 11 "-�' : 1ra✓"`- s4.4' -- '- 1 as a duplex but converted to a tri- s ;, ,: 5 , �,; plex, the house was reverted to a _" .---- y .._ s -;t 1L duplex when moved and is now : ' -; `. - w • . . . •. �-_ - L •_ -: owner-occupied. occu Iv. -` ' zry 24 e.H +r•• rd, mar `°{ s `., ' `^� _. ;;� ..� .. ,�i .;i �x .:�i£ of 7,11x - i r�r with properry owners in a district to planning a one-day, citywide confer- ence with speakers. Publications are essential and can be anything from printed design guidelines to simple xeroxed sheets that explain the function of the commission. The cost of the program is not important—what is im- portant is communicating with the public. Preservation commissions may find it both educational and reassuring to participate in statewide or regional workshops involving other local preser- vation commissions. These keep commissioners current on issues affecting local historic districts and build networks to exchange ideas. Many state historic preservation offices require that communities participating in the CLG program send representatives to such meetings. Lasting Decisions Workshops,preapplication discussions, design guidelines,and checklists of design elements, are techniques that contribute to the ability of a local pres- ervation commission to review applications for new construction projects in historic districts with confidence. It is most important for commission members to know the district and the characteristics that distinguish it as well as to define its long-term goals. Without an understanding and a con- sensus about these basic considerations,it is impossible for any preservation commission to deal properly with requests for new construction. In addition, a solid set of operational procedures is essential to a fair and or- derly decision-malting process. Open communication and continuing edu- cation are necessary ingredients not only with the public and applicants but also among commission members. In smaller communities and those with limited resources, commission members themselves may have to initiate and prepare many, if not all, of their programs and materials. 19 The North Carolina Medical Soci- le•'"i y : .t ety requested demolition of ther.• `� building on the left located in the -.:�-1-•• .,: _...y.. ~- t Oakwood Historic District in Ra- • "•' • • 1, -SI'' leigh and proposed planting the a�v \ �vJ a> .�� > r ` rs ' vacant lot with trees. The Historic ��...;� ,.: ^'. ?' - `'-7^•-'• District Commission's denial of the ``- s. t ,r.----t.y • J _ :, request has placed a one-year ' '; • ''� ` 4: demolition delay on the house. `'` t�- r� � • : l The infill project on the right was . " �`` • "r - ` — built in 1985 for offices by the 4 _`_ s. �t a - z. __ .- 21 North Carolina Beer Wholesalers _ s ; and was designed to be compatible ; { 1 with the residential surroundings * including its next door neighbor. -� " - — �o w_ �---�- - } The Governor's Mansion is directly across the street from the build- ings. Architect of the infill proj- ect Clearscapes Architecture PA. °s Z Even when all the tools are in place,reviewing applications for new con- struction projects in historic districts is seldom easy. They are site specific z and project unique:no two projects are alike, and rarely,if ever,is there one i clear-cut solution. When reviewing new construction projects, a preserva- tion commission should remember that it is the impact of the design on the historic surroundings that should be measured first,followed by an evalua- tion of the individual structure. Equally important,a commission should examine each decision within the context of the long-term goals for the dis- trict as a whole because, once built, the decisions of a preservation commis- ems!`' sion become an integral,visible, and lasting presence in the historic district. Acknowledgements 2 This publication was written and revised by Ellen Beasley,preservation con- sultant. The public design review process and the design of new buildings for historic settings have been among her concentrated areas of study and writings since the late 1970s. Based in Houston,Tex.,Ms.Beasley received a Loeb Fellowship at the Harvard Graduate School of Design and a Rome Prize in Urban Design at the Ameriran Academy in Rome. - Elements of the handbook were developed originally for a class that was organized by the author and taught jointly with Nore V.Winter,urban de- signer. Dwayne Jones,preservation planner of the Texas Historical Com- mission,was particularly helpful in preparing the revision. The author also wishes to acknowledge collectively all the people who provided illustrations for the revision. The illustration and architectural credits recognize only some of the groups and individnals who have been in- volved in the building and publication projects that are represented in this booklet. p 20 Select Bibliography Design and Development:Infill Housing Compatible with Historic Neigh- borhoods.Information Series No.41. Ellen Beasley. Washington,D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation. 1988,reprinted 1992. The publi- cation describes the preconstruction phase of the infill process and the vari- ous participants in a multi-layer design review process that includes a local preservation commission and a neighborhood association. The Edgefield Historic District in Nashville,Tenn.,serves as a case study. Available for $5.00 from: Information Series,National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue,N.W.,Washington,D.C. 20036. (202)673-4189. A Handbook on Historic Preservation Law. Christopher J.Duerksen, ed. Washington,D.C.:The Conservation Foundation and the National Center for Preservation Law. 1983. The chapter on"Local Preservation Law:Re • - viewing Applications for Demolition,Alteration or New Construction," will be of particular interest to commissions. Also includes"Recom- mended Model Provisions for a Preservation Ordinance,"with annotations by Stephen N.Dennis as Appendix A. Available for$30 plus$2.00 shipping and handling from: The World Wildlife Fund,Publications Handling De- partment,P.O.Box 4866,Hampden Post Office;Baltimore,Md. 21211. (410)516-6951. Saving Place:A Guide and Report Card for Protecting Community Charac- ter. Philip B.Herr. Boston:National Trust for Historic Preservation,North- east Regional Office. 1991. The booklet is designed to help citizens of small and rural towns to identify and protect the characteristics that distin- guish their communities. New development is placed within the context of M growth management issues. Available for$14.95 plus$2.00 shipping from the National Trust for Historic Preservation,Northeast Regional Office, 7 Faneuil Hall Marketplace,5th Floor,Boston,Mass. 02109. (617)523-0885. A Design Primer for Cities and Towns. Anne Mackin and Alex Krieger. Boston:Massachusetts Council on the Arts and Humanities. 1989. The book serves as a guide for decision makers,both citizens and professionals, in the public design and planning processes. The Primer explains the impli • - cations of design decisions and how various aspects of design affect plan- ning and development. Although written for Massachusetts,it is applicable to communities everywhere. Available for$15.00 from the Massachusetts Municipal Association,60 Temple Place,Boston,Mass. 02111. Old and New Architecture:Design Relationship. National Trust for His- toric Preservation, ed. Washington,D.C.:Preservation Press. 1980. This • book was one of the first major publications to address the issue of new de- sign in the historic context. The series of essays reflect a range of opinions and while some of the material maybe dated,the basic issues remain the same. The book is out of print but is available in many libraries. Vacant Lots. Carol Willis and Rosalie Genervo, eds. New York:Princeton- Architectural Press and The Architectural League of New York. 1989. Ar- - chitects were invited to design infill housing for ten sites in older,mostly small-scale neighborhoods in New York. The published results, Vacant Lots, can serve as a textbook for anyone interested in infill design because the examples illustrate a range of solutions for each site and test the reader's 1111111 ability to read and interpret plans and elevations. Available for$24.95 plus $3.00 shipping(add 8.25 percent sales tax for New York residents)from Princeton Architectural Press,37 East 7th Street, New York,N.Y., 10003. Good Neighbors:Building Next to History. Colorado Historical Society. Denver:Colorado Historical Society. 1980. A step-by-step guide to help a community identify and define its distinguishing characteristics and write a set of design guidelines. Five Colorado towns serve as examples but the pro- cess is applicable anywhere. Although printed in 1980, the publication re- - mains one of the best on the subject. Available for$4.95 plus$3.00 for shipping and handling from the Colorado Historical Society,Museum Store, 1300 Broadway,Denver, Colo. 80203. Call(303)866-4993 for information and prices on bulk orders. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Washington,D.C.: U.S.Department of the Interior,National Park Service,Preservation Assistance Division. Revised 1990. The Standards include the Secretary's guidelines for new construction with an emphasis on additions to historic buildings. The Pres- ervation Assistance Division also publishes a series of Preservation Briefs including No. 14,New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings:Preserva- tion Concerns. Both publications are available through the Superintendent of Documents,U.S. Government Printing Office,Washington,D.C.20402. The Standards is GPO stock number 024-005-01061-1, $2.00 per copy; Brief No. 14 is GPO stock number 024-005-01011-4, $1.00 per copy. Three national magazines,Architecture,Architectural Record, and PIA (Progressive Architecture),regularly publish articles featuring new design in the historic and/or urban context as well as annual preservation issues. Many libraries subscribe to at least one if not all three magazines. Organizational Resources The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions is a membership orga- nization that provides information regarding historic preservation law,local ordinances, design review, and local preservation planning. It maintains a speakers'bureau and publishes the periodic Alliance Newsletter. For fur- ther information contact: The National Alliance of Preservation Commis- sions,Hall of the States, '111 North Capitol Street,N.W., Suite 332, Washington,D.C. 20001. The National Center for Preservation Law maintains an active file of legal issues pertaining to historic preservation, much of which relates to the de- sign review process. The Center interprets specific court cases and other subjects in a series of Updates that are available through subscription. For further information contact: The National Center for Preservation Law, 1333 Connecticut Avenue,N.W., Suite 300,Washington,D.C. 20036. (202)338-0392. • The National Trust for Historic Preservation has seven regional and field of- fices that provide services to state and local organizations and individuals. These services cover all preservation activities including field visits, advi- sory assistance, conferences, and special projects on issues of particular con- cern to each region. The offices are listed on the back cover of this booklet. The National Trust's Department of Law and Public Policy provides educa- tion and advice on preservation law and historic districts,zoning,monitor- ing of preservation litigation, and other preservation issues. For further information contact-the appropriate National Trust regional office. The Preservation Assistance Division of the National Park Service conducts a variety of activities to guide governmental agencies and the general public in historic preservation project work. The office is responsible for develop- ing and disseminating technical information about specific preservation and rehabilitation problems as well as interpreting The Secretary's Standards. For further information including a catalogue of their publications, contact: The Preservation Assistance Division,Technical Preservation Services, P.O. Box 37127,Washington,D.C. 20013-7127. (202)343-9578. State Historic Preservation Offices(SHPOs)administer a variety of programs including the National Register program at the state level, state and federal grants programs, and the Certified Local Government program that provides assistance in the establishment and training of local preservation commis- sions. The SHPOs conduct regular workshops for CLGs as well as maintain a series of publications and audiovisual materials that are available to CLGs. For further information, contact:National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers at(202)624-5465, the CLG Program at the National Park Service at(202)343-9505, or the National Trust regional offices. r._ - • - - --- '- , ' -- ,.� Secondary structures are among j^ y. --� _,, - _ p the types of new construction _ . � '� _ `# . projects reviewed by preservation c �' \t -;. „ill. , �,,f• commissions. The "Design Services V _ I mow;. Bank"offered by the Bozeman --, '-`=: ;' (Mont.)Historic Preservation Board assisted the owners of this 1889 .- 4, I �a� house in designing the detached ga- -,,�:, ! _ •- `,, — - }j _ :. rage/workshop,shown on the left. u '— 1 r1 „;... The new building and driveway - f j - encroach upon the required 8-foot side yard setback but the review r; 4..fr r board can grant such zoning devia- 111 �k t . iii tions providing infill structures or • — ;.;. - s a-- -• =�4# additions are considered reflective . + .: of the design fabric of the neigneighbor .: hood.Architect:Donald r = Mom = s - -. _- McLaughlin, I. Support for the National Trust is provided in part by matching grants from the U.S.Department of the Interior, . National Park Service,under provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The opinions expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the U.S.Department of the Interior. -OIN THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION NETWORK The Preservation Forum of the National Trust is a membership program for professionals and organizations. The benefits and privileges of membership include subscriptions to Historic Preservation Forum,Historic Preserva- tion magazine,Historic Preservation News,participation in financial/insurance assistance programs, technical ad- vice, and substantial discounts on professional conferences and educational publications. New Information booklets are available free upon request. To join, send$75 annual dues to: Preservation Forum National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Avenue,N.W. . Washington,D.C. 20036 (202)673-4296 Offices of the National Trust for Historic Preservation National Headquarters Northeast Office Texas/New Mexico Field Office 1785 Massachusetts Avenue,N.W. Seven Faneuil Hall Marketplace,5th Floor 500 Main Street,Suite 606 Washington,D.C. 20036 Boston,Mass. 02109 Fort Worth,Tex. 76102 (202)673-4296 (617)523-0885 (817)332-4398 (Connecticut,Maine,Massachusetts,New (New Mexico,Texas) Mid-Atlantic Office Hampshire,New York,Rhode Island,Vermont) Cliveden,6401 Germantown Ave. Western Office adelphia,Pa. 19144 fSouthern Office One Sutter Street,Suite 707 5)438-2886 William Aiken House San Francisco,Calif. 94104 elaware,District of Columbia,Maryland,New 456 King Street (415)956-0610 ersey,Pennsylvania,Puerto Rico,Virginia,Vir- Charleston,S.C. 29403 (Alaska.Arizona,California,Guam,Hawaii, gin Islands,West Virginia) (803)722-8552 Idaho,Micronesia,Nevada,Oregon,Utah,Wash- (Alabama,Arkansas,Florida,Georgia,Kentucky, in Stan) Midwest Office Louisiana,Mississippi,North Carolina,South 53 West Jackson Blvd.,Suite 1135 Carolina,Tennessee) Chicago,111. 60604 (312)939-5547 Mountains/Plains Office (Illinois,Indiana.Iowa,Michigan,Minnesota, 511 16th Street,Suite 700 Copyright G 1992 Missouri,Ohio.Wisconsin) Denver,Colo. 80202 National Trust for Historic Preservation (303)623-1504 (Colorado,Kansas,Montana,Nebraska,North Dakota,Oklahoma,South Dakota,Wyoming) ._.._COO µgS0 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Jim Smith Secretary of State DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES R.A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Director's Office Telecopier Number(FAX) (904)488-1480 (904)488-3353 April 3 , 1992 Dear Friend of Preservation: Next month, the Survey and Registration Section of the Bureau of Historic Preservation will conduct a workshop on' the Florida National Register Nomination Proposal. (See attached information sheet. ) The Nomination Proposal has been revised to reflect recent changes to the federal National Register Nomination forms. Historic preservation consultants and representatives from Florida's Certified Local Governments and Historic Preservation Boards are encouraged to participate in the workshop, which will be followed by the quarterly meeting of the Florida National Register Review Board. There is no fee for attending the workshop but space is limited and reservations are suggested. Please contact the Survey and Registration staff by May 1, 1992 at (904) 487- 2333 if you plan to attend. If you cannot participate, please feel free to call us with any questions or comments you might have about the new nomination proposal. We would like all nomination proposals for the August Review Board meeting to be submitted in the new proposal format. Sincerely., • William N. Thurston Historic Preservation Supervisor Survey and Registration Section WNT:twt Archaeological Research Florida Folklife Programs Historic Preservation Museum of Florida History (904)487-2299 (904)397-2192 - - FLORIDA NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION PROPOSAL WORKSHOP PURPOSE: To present revised guidelines for the preparation and review of proposals for the nomination of historic properties in Florida for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. WHEN: Monday, May 11, 1992 9:00 to 12:00 a.m. WHERE: Room 307, R.A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida (Behind the State Supreme Court Building) • FEE: None MATERIALS: Please bring enclosed copies of: 1) Florida National Register Nomination Proposal packet (draft) 2) National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form 3) and any questions you may wish to raise for discussion. RESERVATIONS: Contact Survey and Registration Section Bureau of Historic Preservation Phone: (904) 487-2333 Deadline for reservations: May 1, 1992 Florida National Register Review Board Agenda May 11 and 12, 1992 Monday, May 11, 1992 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon - The Staff will conduct a workshop on the preparation and review of proposals for the nomination of historic properties in Florida for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 1:00 p.m. - Board convenes for review of nomination proposals Introduction of Board and Staff members Staff Announcements Review of Proposals: 1. Old Bunnell State Bank Building, Flager County 2. White Hall , Bethune Cookman College, Daytona Beach 3. Old Lake Placid ACL Depot, Polk County 4. El Pino Park Historic District, Daytona Beach 5. Morningside Historic District, Miami (WITHDRAWN) 6. Plant City Commercial Historic District, Hillsborough County 7. Collins-Evers Street Historic District, Plant City Adjourn Tuesday, May 12, 1992 8:30 a.m. - Meeting reconvenes to resume review of nomination proposals 8. Bartow Multiple Property Nomination a. Bartow Commercial Historic District b. Northwest Bartow Historic District c. South Bartow Historic District 9. DeFuniak Springs Multiple Property Nomination a. DeFuniak Springs Historic District b. Biddle House Other Business Schedule Next Meeting Date Adjourn Lpe .24 ; o 2 4,0 GUIDELINES FORHE PREPARATION OF THE FLORIDA NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU START TO FILL OUT THE PROPOSAL, there are several steps that will help you avoid unnecessary time, energy, effort, confusion and frustration. FIRST: Remember, as you follow these guidelines and instructions, that the nomination proposal must document the. two basic requirements for National Register listing: 1. that the resource itself possesses significant historic associations that satisfy the National Register Criteria for Listing, and 2 . that it retains the physical integrity of location setting, design, materials and workmanship that reflect its historic significance. • SECOND: READ ALL INSTRUCTIONS and all sections of the nomination proposal so that you understand what information is required. This will enable you to properly identify the significant resources to be included in the proposed nomination, and to plan your research. 1. IF YOU ARE PREPARING A DISTRICT OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE PROPOSAL, request supplemental guidelines and - instructions. 2 . IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CALL US AT (904) 487-2333 . THIRD: Contact the owner(s) of the property if you are not the sole owner. 1. Advise them of your intention to prepare a nomination proposal. 2 . Provide information on the National Register program and, if the property is privately owned, advise them of their right to object to its listing in the National Register. Note: . We will be happy to contact the owner-(s)_ directly to answer any questions. 3 . Arrange for access to the grounds and significant interior spaces. -. FOURTH: Make a preliminary visual survey of the site. This will provide an initial framework for further investigation and research, which will in turn provide the basis for the final boundary determination. 1. Make a sketch of the preliminary boundaries that you • • think will include everything on the property that reflects its historic significance. 2 . Make a list of all man-made features within and immediately adjacent to the preliminary boundaries. Identify both those which you feel reflect the historic significance of the property, and those which do not contribute to its significance. FIFTH: Gather background information on the history of the property and how it fits into the historic development of the community. Look for documentation that will help you determine: 1. what historically significant events, activities or developments are directly associated with the property, 2 . when such events, activities or developments occurred, 3 . who was responsible for the historically significant development or use of the property, and 4 . how the present physical appearance and character of the property reflect its historically significant associations. The Suggestions for Background .Research that follow may be .helpful. SIXTH: WHEN ALL THAT IS DONE, you will be ready to complete the proposal. 1. Follow the instructions for each item. If you have any questions, call us at (904) 487-2333 . 2 . Be sure to complete each item. Please type all entries. • FINALLY: Assemble the completed proposal and required supplementary documents, and forward the material to the Bureau of 'Historic Preservation. See Check List and Special Instructions for Submission below. SUGGESTIONS FOR BACKGROUND RESEARCH Often, conducting historic research can be agonizing and . frustrating for those persons undertaking it for the first time. Essential documents can be difficult to locate, and the terms used to describe the style and physical elements of a building or structure are highly specialized.- The following suggestions include a few of the sources where you ' may find some of the information you require. 1. The owner of the property: Often the owner has deeds, property abstracts, wills, letters, historic photographs, 3 and family or other records or mementos relating to the history of the property, especially if it has remained in the family for several generations. 2 . Libraries: Even small local libraries will usually have copies of the standard histories of Florida, such as A History of Florida by Charlton W. Tebeau and Florida: Historic, Dramatic, Contemporary by Junius E. Dovell, as well as any published histories of the county or community, which may provide useful background information on the property or its developers. More specific information may be available in the special collections often found in local libraries, which may contain a variety of promotional publications or other material of local historical interest. University or community college libraries in your area should be consulted. • 3 . Local or County Historical Societies or Historians: Consult any collections maintained by historical groups, and discuss your proposal with local historians for information regarding the site or the activities of persons associated with it. Faculties of high school and college history/social studies departments may be helpful. • 4. County Courthouse: Tax rolls, probate records, plat books, deeds and other official records are found here. All are good potential sources of information. 5. City Hall: The city hall may have building permits, building plans, minutes of city council meetings, and Sanborn maps (maps which were used by fire insurance companies to determine which properties' were insurable) on file. Long time or retired city and county employees may also be helpful. 6. Newspapers: These often have a "morgue" , a collection of past issues going back many years. These are often found at libraries also. 7 . There are also three state agencies in Tallahassee which may be able to provide historical information: State Library of Florida, Florida Collection, (904) 487-2651 Florida State Archives, (904) 487-2073 Department of Natural Resources, Division of State Lands, Bureau of Survey & Mapping, Title & Land Records Section, (904) 488-8123 4 Suggested Sources for Describing Architectural Resources (try the library) : A Field Guide to American Houses by Virginia & Lee McAlester, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1984 . Identifying American Architecture by John Blumenson, Free Press, New York, 1978 . American Architecture Since 1780: A Guide to Styles by Marcus Whiffen, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA. , 1969 What Style Is It? by John Popperliers and S. Allen chambers, Preservation Press, Washington, D.C. , 1983. 5 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE FLORIDA NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION PROPOSAL Please type all entries and narrative statements. The following instructions discuss each section of the National Register Registration Form, item by item. 1. Name of Property Historic Name: Enter name by which the property was - known originally or during the period of its historic significance. (Often the name of the person who originally owned or developed the property. ) Other Names: Enter any common names by which it has been or is- currently known.. 2 . Location If the property is in a rural area, indicate state or county road number and distance from the nearest highway junction, town, or prominent landmark. Check the box "not for publication" only if there is reason to protect the properties from vandalism. If there is no reason to keep the location confidential, put "N/A". Check "vicinity" if the property' is located outside the limits of the nearest city of town; otherwise,put "N/A" . 3 . Awareness Statement Ask the owner (or appropriate official if the property is publicly owned) to complete and sign the statement when the preliminary draft is ready for submission. 4. Legal Description of Property Provide the legal description of the property as it is officially recorded in the county Property Appraiser's Office. This may be very short, merely listing the subdivision, block, and lot numbers, or quite lengthy. If necessary, continue the legal description on a separate sheet. Copy it exactly as it is recorded. 5. Classification a. Check the appropriate box under Ownership of Property. b. Check only one box under Category of Property. Building: anything constructed to shelter human 6 activity, such as a house, -barn, church, hotel, etc. District: a concentrated group of buildings, sites or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. Site: location of significant prehistoric or historic archaeological remains, or of a significant historic event, e.g. : Olustee Battlefield. Structure: a utilitarian construction such as a wind mill, canal, vessel, fortification, etc. which differs from a building in that it was not designed primarily to provide shelter. Object: a construction primarily artistic in character, and usually associated with its location, such as a sculpture, fountain, marker, monument, etc. c. Indicate the number of contributing and non- contributing resources (man-made features) within the proposed property boundary. 6. Function or use Indicate major historic and current use first; list other uses in order of importance. 7 . Description Architectural Classification: Enter the architectural style, if applicable. 0 Materials: Enter major materials used in each structural element listed. Narrative Description: Use separate sheets as necessary. Provide footnotes as appropriate. Begin with a brief summary paragraph that describes the property and its surroundings. Describe its present condition and note its major physical characteristics. Assess the integrity of the property as it now exists, as compared with its original location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Your supporting paragraphs should then provide a detailed description including the following kinds of information: a. Setting: Describe the physical environment surrounding the property when it was originally 7 developed. Describe the changes that have occurred over the years, and the surroundings environment as it exists today. b. Contributing resources: Describe in detail each of the buildings, structures, or other resources that contribute to the significance of the property in order of their prominence or importance. 1) Describe exterior features first, including: a) size, type, general configuration, and basic structural elements, b) architectural characteristics and design features, including distinctive decorative . elements, c) structural and finish materials, and any significant or distinctive manner in which they are applied, ' d) - alterations that have changed the original appearance of the resource, when they were made, and why. . 2) Describe the interior of contributing buildings and structures, including the arrangement and use of various spaces and any significant structural or architectural features. Explain any major alterations that have been made to the interior configuration or appearance. • 3) Describe ancillary resources, such as outbuildings, masonry walls or landings, formal gardens, etc. that were a part of and contribute to the historic significance of. the property. . 4) For buildings or structures that have been moved, provide the date of the move and explain the reasons for and effect of the move on the historic character and appearance of the property and its setting. • c. Non-contributing resources: Provide a brief description of each non-contributing resource within the boundary of the property proposed for nomination, and a statement as to why it is not considered significant. d. Archaeological resources: Contact the Bureau staff for supplemental instructions regarding prehistoric or historic archaeological sites. 8 8 . Statement of Significance Applicable National Register Criteria and Criteria Consideration: Check the boxes you consider appropriate. Areas of Significance: Check the boxes which you think are applicable. Remember, each area claimed must be justified in the narrative statement of significance. Period of Significance: Enter the period of time in which the property achieved the significance for which it meets the National Register criteria. In each blank enter the years for the continuous period of time during which the property had significance, for example, 1875- 1888. Significant Dates: Enter the year of construction as closely as possible. If there are other significant dates, enter them in order of importance. Significant Person: Enter names of persons with whom the property is importantly associated. List the most important first. Cultural Affiliation: For archaeological sites only. Architect/Builder: - Enter the names of persons or firms responsible for design and construction. If they cannot be identified, enter "unknown". Enter "N/A" for a district or site. Narrative Statement of Significance: Use separate sheets as necessary. Be sure to justify each of the areas and periods of significance noted above. The purpose of the Statement of Significance is to place the property within its historical context, and to document its significance in the areas of significance checked above. Therefore, the sources of information must be identified by standard footnote practice. Begin the statement with a brief summary paragraph which states why the property is significant under the Criteria and areas of significance checked. Supporting paragraphs should then provide detailed information as to: a. Historic context: Describe and discuss the general historical economic, social, political or other circumstances prevailing in the community at the time the property was originally developed or became historically significant. What specific events or -- 9 developments led to the construction or historic use of the property? b. Historic significance: Discuss in detail: 1) the significant role that the resource played in the historic development of the community or region in each of the areas of significance checked above, 2) its association with specific historic events and developments during the period of significance • indicated, and 3) the relationship of the resource to the activities of significant persons named above. - Provide a brief biographical sketch of the persons named. Remember that it is the resource 'that you are proposing for nomination, on the basis of its direct association with significant events or . developments, and not the events themselves or the persons involved. c. Architectural significance: Discuss the manner in which the building or structure reflects: 1) significant characteristics of structural, architectural, or engineering design and construction, and how they relate to contemporary • trends and developments in architectural style and engineering technology, 2) the application of contemporary materials, methods of construction, and workmanship, and, 3) if applicable, the involvement of or association with prominent architects, engineers, planners, or developers in relation to their other achievements. d. Archaeological significance: Contact the Bureau staff for supplemental instructions regarding prehistoric or historic archaeological resources. 9. Major Bibliographical References: On a separate sheet, list the major primary and secondary sources used in your research, using a standard bibliographical style such as: The Chicago Manual of Style or A Manual For Writers by Kate Turabian. For unpublished manuscripts, be sure to indicate where they are available. For interviews, include the date of the interview, name, title, and location of person interviewed. Cite any previous studies of the property. 10 10. Geographical Date Acreage of Property: Give to the nearest acre, such as less than 1 acre, or 47 acres. Verbal Boundary Description: a. If the proposal includes all of the area defined by the Legal Description, enter "See Legal Description" Item 4. " b. If the proposal includes only a part of the parcel defined by the Legal Description, enter "See Attached Site Plan, " and make sure that the boundaries are clearly drawn on the site plan as required under Additional Items below. _ Boundary Justification: Briefly explain rationale behind your selection of the boundary. 11. Form Prepared By: Please provide complete information. Be sure to include the telephone number at which you can be reached during normal working hours. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION Continuation Sheets: Identify each sheet by subject and page number. Maps: a. A clean, unmarked United States Geological Survey (USGS) map for the area in which the property is located. These maps are usually available from engineering supply firms or map dealers. Check with :your local planning agency for sources and identification of the appropriate map for your area. See Special Instructions for Submission. b. A sketch map clearly showing the location of the property in the community or in relation to readily identifiable rural landmarks. Photographs: Must be unmounted, black and white, glossy prints, 4x6 inches or larger. Two copies of each print will be required. See Special Instructions for Submission. a. Photos should include: 1. an overall view of the property, showing all or as many resources on the property as possible, 2. each elevation (front, sides, rear) of each 11 contributing resource, 3 . major interior spaces of each contributing building or structure, 4. close-up shots of significant or unusual decorative or structural details on the exterior or interior of the property, 5. one exterior view of each non-contributing resource within the boundaries. The photograph should show as much of the resource as possible (usually the front and one side. ) b. Photo identification: Do not write on or attach permanent labels to the front or back of photos. Removable labels such as Post-It-Notes may be attached to the back. The following information is required for each photo. 1. Name of property and street address 2 . City and county where located 3 . Name of photographer. 4 . Date of photograph 5. Location of original negative (or print from which historic photo has been copied) 6. Description of view (direction in which camera is facing, e.g. : Camera facing southeast) 7. Number of photograph in sequence (1 of 10, etc) Additional Items: a. A site plan indicating the boundaries of the property proposed for nomination and the location of all contributing and non-contributing resources on the site. This plan should show the proper shape and • physical relationship of all resources to one another, and include an approximate scale and North direction arrow. b. Sketch plans of each contributing building or structure showing current floor plans or plans of the major interior divisions for each floor. Label each room or division according to function (living room, kitchen, veranda, etc. ) Indicate alterations if appropriate. Include an approximate scale and north arrow. 12 c. Footnotes for the description and statement of significance. d. Photocopy, photostat, or transcript copies of the most important documents and sources used in preparing your statements. Transcripts from original documents should be typewritten. Note: Be sure to photocopy the title page or take careful bibliographical notes on the sources you used. e. If your proposal has been written on a computer, send a floppy disk copy of it to our office. We use Microsoft Word, but any DOS program is compatible with our system. Property Owner: Provide complete mailing address and daytime telephone number. 13 CHECKLIST AND SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION 1. Preliminary Submission Use the following check list in assembling the proposal package to assure that all the required information is entered on the form and that all necessary supporting documentation is included. When everything is in order, submit one complete copy, including one set of photographic prints, for preliminary review by the Bureau staff. Retain the original for any necessary correction or revision, and for later submission with the copies required for distribution to the members of the Florida National Register Review Board. The Bureau staff will review your initial submission and advise you of any changes, clarification or additional information we may need in order to schedule the proposal for consideration at a public meeting of the Review Board. If major revision is required, we may return the entire package for proper completion. 2 . Formal Submission When the proposal has been scheduled for Review Board consideration, we will advise you of the date and place of the Board meeting, and request the formal submission of the proposal. The formal submission will include: a. the complete proposal package, including the - original of the form, the second set of photographic prints, and all other supporting documents, and b. twelve photocopies of the proposal for distribution to the Review Board members prior to the meeting date. Please note that some items of supporting documentation (identified by asterisk in the following check list) are not required in the Board member copies. We will advise you which photograph you should photocopy for inclusion in the Board member's copies. Review Board meetings are normally held in the R.A. Gray Building in Tallahassee. All meetings are public. If possible, you should plan to attend in order to respond to any questions that may arise during the consideration of your proposal. 14 3 . Check list for Preliminary and Formal Submission Preliminary Formal Proposal Form: Check to assure Submission Submission that all blanks are filled and appropriate boxes are checked. Historic and other site names Location information complete Owner Statement complete and signed Legal Description complete Ownership classification checked Property classification checked Number of contributing and non- contributing resources entered Historic and current uses entered Architectural style identified • Materials identified Narrative Description include: Summary paragraph Setting description (historic & current) Contributing resources - exterior interior alterations Non-contributing resources Significance Criteria and Criteria considerations checked Areas of Significance checked Significant dates or persons identified Architect and/or builder identified • 15 Narrative Significance Statement includes: Summary paragraph Historic context Justification for each Area of Significance claimed Bibliography entered Acreage of Property entered Boundary Description and Justification provided -Form Prepared by information complete • Owner information complete Additional Documentation: * USGS Map - clean and unmarked Sketch map fo_r location in community Photographs include: Overall view of property Exterior elevations and detail photos of contributing buildings or structures General view of non-contribu ting resources . Identified per Instructions Site Plan showing boundaries and resources Sketch plans of interior spaces " of contributing buildings and structures Footnotes for descriptive and significance narrative * Copies of source materials * Floppy disk of material prepared on computer NPS FORM 10-900 OMB No. 10024-0018 (OCT. 1990) United States Department of the Interior Adapted for the National Park Service PROPOSAL National Register of Historic Places of Properties in Florida for Nomination to the National Register Registration Form of Historic Places This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts.See instructions in How to Complete the Nationa/HegisterofHistoric Places Registration Form(National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking"x"in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If an item does not apply to the property being documented,enter"N/A"for"not applicable."For functions, architectural classification,materials,and areas of significance,enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions.Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets(NPS Form 10-900a).Use a typewriter,word processor, or computer to complete all items. Grayed Areas for Use by Staff 1. Name of Property historic name other names FMSF Number 2. Location street&number • n not for publication city or town ❑ vicinity state FLORIDA code FL county code zip code • 3. Owner Awareness Statement As the owner, or official representative of the owner, of the property identified above, I am aware of this proposal for its nomination for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. I have been advised of the procedures for review of the proposal by the State Historic Preservation Office and the Florida National Register Review Board, and for the forma nomination of the property at the discretion of the State Historic Preservation Officer. I understand that I will be notifiec of the date and place of the public meetion at which • the proposal will be considered by the Florida National Register Review Board, and that I will be given an opportunity to submit written comments and to appear in person in support of or opposition to the nomination of the property. At this time I support oppose reserve opinion on this proposal. Signature of property owner or representative Date 4. Legal Description of Property (according to county property appraiser's office) • Attach continuation sheet if necessary Name of property County and State 5. Classification Ownership of Property Category of Property Number of Resources within Property (Check as many boxes as apply) (Check only one box) (Do not include previously listed resources in the count.) ❑ private ❑ building(s) Contributing Noncontributing ❑ public-local ❑ district building(s) p public-State ❑ site ❑ public-Federal ❑ structure sites ❑ object structures objects Total Name of related multiple property listing Number of contributing resources previously (Enter"N/A"if property is not part of multiple property listing.) listed in the National Register 6. Function or Use Historic Functions Current Functions • 7. Description Architectural Classification Materials foundation • walls . . roof otber • Narrative Description (Describe the historic and current condition of the property on one or more continuation sheets.) • Name of property County and State 8. Statement of Significance Applicable National Register Criteria Areas of Significance (Mark"x"in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property for ❑ Agriculture ❑ Industry National Register listing.) ❑ A Property is associated with events that have made ❑ Architecture ID Maritime History a significant contribution to the broad patterns of ❑ Archaeology ❑ Military our history. 0 Community Planning ❑ Politics/Govt. ❑ B Property is associated with the lives of persons ❑ Commerce ❑ Recreation significant in our past. ❑ Education ❑ Religion ❑ C Property embodies the distinctive characteristics ❑ Early Settlement ❑ Transportation of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses ❑ Health/Medicine Other: high artistic values, or represents a significant and Period of Significance distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. p D Property has yielded or is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. Significant Dates Criteria Considerations Mark"x"in all the boxes that apply.) • Property is: • ❑ A owned by a religious institution or used for • religious purposes. Significant Person (if proposed under category B) • ❑ B removed from its original location. ❑ C a birthplace or grave. Cultural Affiliation(for archaeological sites only) ❑ D a cemetery ❑ E a reconstructed building, object or structure. ❑ F a commemorative property. • ❑ G less than 50 years of age or achieved significance Architect/Builder within the last 50 years. Narrative Statement of Significance (Explain the significance of the property on one or more continuation sheets) 9. Major Bibliographical References Bibliography (Cite the books, articles,and other sources used in preparing this form on one or more continuation sheets.) J --- Name of property County and State 10. Geographical Data Acreage of Property UTM References (Place additional UTM references on a continuation sheet.) 4 f 111111iII ill ' i1 � Ii ( 3 .II11111I111111111I Zone Easting Northing (IZone Easting Northing 2 1 I 1 1 :! 1 1 1 1 ( 1 I I '1 i I ( 4 l 1 I '1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing Verbal Boundary Description p See continuation sheet (Describe the boundaries of the property on a continuation sheet.) Boundary Justification (Explain why the boundaries were selected on a continuation sheet.) 11 Form Prepared By name/title • organization date street&number telephone city or town state zip code Additional Documentation Submit the following items with the completed form: Continuation Sheets (All information on continuation sheets must be typed.) Maps A USGS map (7.5 minute series) Do not write upon or attach labels to this map. A.Sketch map (Clearly show the location of the property in relation to streets, roads, or other identifiable landmarks.) Photographs Representative black and white photographs of the property. (Do not write upon or attach permanent labels to the photographs.) Additional items • (Check with area Historic Sites Specialist at [904] 487-2333 for any additional items.) Property Owner name street&number telephone city or town state zip code