Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01/11/2023 - Historic Preservation Commission - AGENDA - Work Session
Page 1 Kurt Knierim, Chair Location: Jim Rose, Vice Chair This meeting will be held Margo Carlock IN PERSON at Walter Dunn Chambers, 300 LaPorte Ave Jenna Edwards Bonnie Gibson Eric Guenther Staff Liaison: Anne Nelsen Maren Bzdek Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager Work Session January 11, 2023 5:30 PM Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government (CLG) authorized by the National Park Service and History Colorado based on its compliance with federal and state historic preservation standards. CLG standing requires Fort Collins to maintain a Historic Preservation Commission composed of members of which a minimum of 40% meet federal standards for professional experience from preservation-related disciplines, including, but not limited to, historic architecture, architectural history, archaeology, and urban planning. For more information, see Article III, Division 19 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Historic Preservation Commission AGENDA All Commission Members in quasi-judicial matters, must be in person according to Section 2-73 of the Municipal Code. IN PERSON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: No public comment is allowed during work sessions. Members of the public may observe the meeting but will not be allowed to comment at the meeting. The public may comment in the regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission which will be held in person on January 18, 2023. Information on how to participate is contained in the agenda for that meeting available at https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/landmark-preservation.php. Documents to share: Members of the public wishing to submit documents, visual presentations, or written comments for the Commission to consider regarding any item on the agenda must email them at Packet Pg. 1 Page 2 • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • REVIEW OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2023, AT 5:30 P.M. VIA ZOOM AND IN-PERSON (Please see the agenda for the January 18, 2023, meeting for information on how to join that meeting.) CONSENT 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 2022 2. 416 STOVER – SINGLE-FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTICE 3. 330 SCOTT/1224 W MAGNOLIA – SINGLE-FAMILY DEMOLITON NOTICE 4. 512 EDWARDS – SINGLE-FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTICE DISCUSSION 5. REPORT ON STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING 6. 1802 N COLLEGE – POBRE PANCHO’S – APPLICATION FOR INVOLUNTARY FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION • BOARD TOPICS 1. Local History – Jewish History 2. Training - Additions • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 2 Board Topic 1, Page 1 DATE: STAFF: January 11, 2023 Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Kristy Ornelas, Historic Preservation Intern WORK SESSION ITEM Historic Preservation Commission SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Training – Content Series – Jewish History EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This will be a short informational session on a local history topic, specifically Jewish history in Fort Collins. This project was undertaken as part of the City’s Full Story Fort Collins project, and in relation to the City’s Civil Rights historic context project funded by the Colorado State Historical Fund. Ms. Kristy Ornelas, a graduate public history student at Colorado State University, was hired as an intern during a portion of the fall semester and was assigned the research and drafting of a brief and walking tour on Jewish history in Fort Collins. This item will include a brief overview of Jewish history in Fort Collins, and how it fits into the larger regional historic context of Colorado and the American West. Staff will briefly review some of those initial findings and next steps in the training session. Representation of Jewish history is an important component of an inclusive historic preservation program that serves all existing community groups and supports a sense of belonging for all. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 3 DATE: STAFF: January 11, 2023 Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner WORK SESSION ITEM Historic Preservation Commission SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Additions on Historic Buildings: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Other Considerations. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a training session regarding how City staff and the Historic Preservation Commission review and approve additions on designated historic resources using the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, the City’s adopted Standards for reviewing and approving projects on historic buildings within city limits. The Standards are adopted in Municipal Code Sec. 14-53. The presentation will overview the preservation goals of allowing and regulating additions on historic buildings, the basis for this decision-making in the City’s adopted federal standards, and other localized guidance and standards such as the Old Town Design Standards. Commissioners are encouraged to come with questions about additions on historic buildings, the Standards, and the City’s project review process. ATTACHMENTS 1.NPS Preservation Brief 14, New Exterior Additions, also available here: https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/preservation-brief-14-exterior-additions.pdf 2.ITS Bulletin No 3, New Additions to Mid-size Historic Buildings (I), also available here: https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/its-03-additions-midsize-buildings.pdf 3.ITS Bulletin No 18, New Additions to Mid-size Historic Buildings (II), also available here: https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/its-18-additions-midsize-buildings.pdf 4.ITS Bulletin No 37, Rear Additions to Historic Houses, also available here: https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/its-37-rear-additions.pdf 5.ITS Bulletin No 36, Rooftop Additions, also available here: https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/its-36- rooftop-additions.pdf 6.Staff PowerPoint Presentation Board Topic 2, Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 4 PRESERVATION BRIEFS New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Conc e rns Anne E. G rimmer and Kay D. Weeks National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services A new exterior addition to a historic building should be considered in a rehabilitation project onl y after determining that requirements for the new or adaptiv e u se cannot be successfully met by altering non- significant interior spaces . If the new use cannot be accommodated in this way, then an exterior addition may be an acceptable alternative. Rehabilitation as a treatment "is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair , alterations, and additions while preserving those portion s or features which convey its historical , cultural , or architectural values." The topic of new additions, including rooftop additions , to historic buildings comes up frequentl y, especially as it relates to rehabilitation projects. It is often discussed and it is the subject of concern, consternation, considerable disagreement and confusion. Can, in certain instances, a historic building be enlarged for a new use without destroying its historic character? And, just what is significant about each particular historic building that should be preserved? Finally, what kind of new construction is appropriate to the historic building? The vast amount of literature on the subject of additions to historic buildings reflects widespread interest as well as divergence of opinion. New additions have been discussed by historians within a social and political framework; by architects and architectural historians in terms of construction technology and style; and by urban planners as successful or unsuccessful contextual design. However, within the historic preservation and rehabilitation programs of the National Park Service, the focus on new additions is to ensure that they preserve the character of historic buildings . Most historic districts or neighborhoods are listed in the National Register of Historic Places for their significance within a particular time frame. This period of significance of historic districts as well as individually-listed properties may sometimes lead to a misunderstanding that inclusion in the National Register may prohibit any physical change outside of a certain historical period-particularly in the form of exterior additions . National Register listing does not mean that a building or district is frozen in time and that no change can be made without compromising the historical significance . It does mean, however, that a new addition to a his t oric building should preserve its historic character. Figure 1. The addition to the right with its connecting hyphen is compatible with the Collegiate Gothic-style library. The addition is set back fr om the fr ont of the library and uses the same materials and a simplified design that references, but does not copy, the his toric building. Photo: Dav id Wakely Photography. 1 BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 5 2 Figure 2 . The new section on the right is appropriately scaled and reflects the design of the historic Art Deco-style hotel. The apparent separation created by the recessed connector also enables the addition to be viewed as an individual building. Guidance on New Additions To meet Standard 1 of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, which states that "a property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment," it must be determined whether a historic building can accommodate a new addition. Before expanding the building's footprint, consideration should first be given to incorporating changes-such as code upgrades or spatial needs for a new use-within secondary areas of the historic building. However, this is not always possible and, after such an evaluation, the conclusion may be that an addition is required, particularly if it is needed to avoid modifications to character-defining interior spaces. An addition should be designed to be compatible with the historic character of the building and, thus, meet the Standards for Rehabilitation. Standards 9 and 10 apply specifically to new additions: (9) "New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment." (10) "New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired." The subject of new additions is important because a new addition to a historic building has the potential to change its historic character as well as to damage and destroy significant historic materials and features. A new addition also has the potential to confuse the public and to make it difficult or impossible to differentiate the old from the new or to recognize what part of the historic building is genuinely historic. The intent of this Preservation Brief is to provide guidance to owners, architects and developers on how to design a compatible new addition, including a rooftop addition, to a historic building. A new addition to a historic building should preserve the building's historic character. To accomplish this and meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, a new addition should: • Preserve significant historic materials, features and form; • Be compatible; and • Be differentiated from the historic building. Every historic building is different and each rehabilitation project is unique. Therefore, the guidance offered here is not specific, but general, so that it can be applied to a wide variety of building types and situations. To assist in interpreting this guidance, illustrations of a variety of new additions are provided. Good examples, as well as some that do not meet the Standards, are included to further help explain and clarify what is a compatible new addition that preserves the character of the historic building. Figure 3. The red and buff-colored parking addition with a rooftop playground is compatible with the early-20th century school as well as with the neighborhood in which it also serves as infill in the urban setting. BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 6 Preserve Significant Historic Materials, Features and Form Attaching a new exterior addition usually involves some degree of material loss to an external wall of a historic building, but it should be minimized. Damaging or des t roying significant materials and craftsmanship should be avoided, as much as possible. Generally speaking, preservation of historic buildings inherently implies minimal change to primary or "public" elevations and, of course, interior features as well. Exterior features that distinguish one historic building or a row of buildings and which can be seen from a public right of way, such as a st r eet or sidewalk , are most likely to be the most significant. These can include many different elements, such as: window patterns, window hoods or shutters; porticoes, entrances and doorways; roof shapes, cornices and decor a tive moldings; or commercial storefronts with their special detailing , signs and glazing patterns . Beyond a single building, entire blocks of urban or residential structures are often closely related architecturally by their materials, detailing, form and alignment. Because significant materials and features should be preserved, not damaged or hidden , the first place to consider placing a new addition is in a location where the least amount of historic material and character-defining features will be lost. In most cases, this will be on a secondary side or rear elevation . One way to reduce overall material loss when constructing a new addition is simply to keep the addition smaller in proportion to the size of the historic building. Limiting the size and number of openings between old and new by utilizing existing doors or enlarging windows also helps to minimize loss. An often successful way to accomplish this is to link the addition to the historic building by means of a hyphen or connector. A connector provides a physical link while visually separating the old and new, and the connecting passageway penetrates and removes only a small portion of the historic wall. A new addition that will abut the historic building along an entire elevation or wrap around a side and rear elevation, will likely integrate the historic and the new interiors , and thus result in a high degree of loss of form and exterior walls , as well as significant alteration of interior spaces and features, and will not meet the Standards. Fig ure 4. Thi s g lass an d bri ck s tru c ture is a harmonious addition se t back and connected to th e rear of the Colonial R ev iva l-s tyl e brick hou se. Cunnin gham /Quill Ar chit ects . Ph otos:© Ma xwe ll Ma cKen z ie. Compatible but Differentiated Design In accordance with the Standards, a new addition must preserve the building's historic character and, in order to do that, it must be differentiated, but compatible, with the historic building. A new addition must retain the essential form and integrity of the historic property. Keeping the addition smaller, limiting the removal of historic materials by linking the addition with a hyphen , and locating the new addition at the rear or on an inconspicuous side elevation of a historic building are techniques discussed previously that can help to accomplish this. Rather than differentiating between old and new, it might seem more in keeping with the historic character 3 BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 7 4 simply to repeat the historic form, material, features and detailing in a new addition. However, when the new work is highly replicative and indistinguishable from the old in appearance, it may no longer be possible to identify the "real" historic building. Conversely, the treatment of the addition should not be so different that it becomes the primary focus. The difference may be subtle, but it must be clear. A new addition to a historic building should protect those visual qualities that make the building eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The National Park Service policy concerning new additions to historic buildings, which was adopted in 1967, is not unique. It is an outgrowth and continuation of a general philosophical approach to change first expressed by John Ruskin in England in the 1850s, formalized by William Morris in the founding of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings in 1877, expanded by the Society in 1924 and, finally, reiterated in the 1964 Venice Charter-a document that continues to be followed by the national committees of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). The 1967 Administrative Policies for Historical Areas of the National Park System direct that " ... a modern addition should be readily distinguishable from the older work; however, the new work should be harmonious with the old in scale, proportion, materials, and color. Such additions should be as inconspicuous as possible from the public view." As a logical evolution from these Policies specifically for National Park Service-owned historic structures, the 1977 Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, which may be applied to all historic buildings listed in, or eligible for listing in the National Register, also state that "the new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment." Figure 5. This addition (a) is constructed of matching brick and attached by a recessed connector (b) to the 1914 apartment building (c). The design is compatible and the addition is smaller and subordinate to the historic building (d). Preserve Historic Character The goal, of course, is a new addition that preserves the building's historic character. The historic character of each building may be different, but the methodology of establishing it remains the same. Knowing the uses and functions a building has served over time will assist in making what is essentially a physical evaluation. But, while written and pictorial documentation can provide a framework for establishing the building's history, to a large extent the historic character is embodied in the physical aspects of the historic building itself- shape, materials, features, craftsmanship, window arrangements, colors, setting and interiors. Thus, it is important to identify the historic character before making decisions about the extent-or limitations-of change that can be made. BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 8 Figure 6. A new addition (left) is connected to the garage which separates it from the main block of the c. 1910 former florist shop (right). The addition is traditional in style, yet sufficiently restrained in design to distinguish it from the historic building. Figure 7. A vacant side lot was the only place a new stair tower could be built when this 1903 theater was rehabilitated as a performing arts center. Constructed with matching materials, the stair tower is set back with a recessed connector and, despite its prominent location, it is clearly subordinate and differentiated from the historic theater. A new addition should always be subordinate to the historic building; it should not compete in size, scale or des ign with the historic building. An addition that bears no relationship to the proportions and massing of the historic building-in other words, one that overpowers the historic form and changes the scale- will usually compromise the historic character as well. The appropriate size for a new addition varies from building to building; it could never be stated in a square or cubic footage ratio, but the historic building's existing proportions, site and setting can help set some general parameters for enlargement. Although even a small addition that is poorly designed can have an adverse impact, to some extent, there is a predictable relationship between the size of the historic resource and what is an appropriate size for a compatible new addition. Generally, constructing the new addition on a secondary side or rear elevation-in addition to material preservation-will also preserve the historic character. Not only will the addition be less visible, but because a secondary elevation is usually simpler and less distinctive, the addition will have less of a physical and visual impact on the historic building. Such placement will help to preserve the building's historic form and relationship to its site and setting. Historic landscape features, including distinctive grade variations, also need to be respected. Any new landscape features, including plants and trees, should be kept at a scale and density that will not interfere with understanding of the historic resource itself. A traditionally landscaped property should not be covered with large paved areas for parking which would drastically change the character of the site. Despite the fact that in most cases it is recommended that the new addition be attached to a secondary elevation, sometimes this is not possible. There simply may not be a secondary elevation-some important freestanding buildings have significant materials and features on all sides. A structure or group of structures together with its setting (for example, a college campus) may be of such significance that any new addition would not only damage materials, but alter the buildings' relationship to each other and the setting. An addition attached to a highly-visible elevation of a historic building can radically alter the historic form or obscure features such as a decorative cornice or window ornamentation. Similarly, an addition that fills 5 BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 9 6 Figure 8. The rehabilitation of this large, early-20th century warehouse (left) into affordable artists' lofts included the addition of a compatible glass and brick elevator/stair tower at the back (right). Figure 9. A simple, brick stair tower replaced two non-historic additions at the rear of this 1879 school building when it was rehabilitated as a women's and children's shelter. The addition is set back and it is not visible from the front of the school. Figure 10. The small size and the use of matching materials ensures that the new addition on the left is compatible with the historic Romanesque Revival-style building. In other instances, particularly in urban areas, there may be no other place but adjacent to the primary fac;ade to locate an addition needed for the new use. It may be possible to design a lateral addition attached on the side that is compatible with the historic building, even though it is a highly-visible new element. Certain types of historic structures, such as government buildings, metropolitan museums, churches or libraries, may be so massive in size that a relatively large- scale addition may not compromise the historic character, provided, of course, the addition is smaller than the historic building. Occasionally, the visible size of an addition can be reduced by placing some of the spaces or support systems in a part of the structure that is underground. Large new additions may sometimes be successful if they read as a separate volume, rather than as an extension of the historic structure, although the scale, massing and proportions of the addition still need to be compatible with the historic building. However, similar expansion of smaller buildings would be dramatically out of scale. In summary, where any new addition is proposed, correctly assessing the relationship between actual size and relative scale will be a key to preserving the character of the historic building. in a planned void on a highly-visible elevation (such as a U-shaped plan or a feature such as a porch) will also alter the historic form and, as a result, change the historic character. Under these circumstances, an addition would have too much of a negative impact on the historic building and it would not meet the Standards. Such situations may best be handled by constructing a separate building in a location where it will not adversely affect the historic structure and its setting. BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 10 There is no formula or prescription for designing a new addition that meets the Standards. A new addition to a historic building that meets the Standards can be any architectural style-traditional, contemporary or a simplified version of the historic building. However, there must be a balance between differentiation and compatibility in order to maintain the historic character and the identity of the building being enlarged. New additions that too closely resemble the historic building or are in extreme contrast to it fall short of this balance. Inherent in all of the guidance is the concept that an addition needs to be subordinate to the historic building. A new addition must preserve significant historic materials, features and form, and it must be compatible but differentiated from the historic building. To achieve this, it is necessary to carefully consider the placement or location of the new addition, and its size, scale and massing when planning a new addition. To preserve a property's historic character, a new addition must be visually distinguishable from the historic building. This does not mean that the addition and the historic building should be glaringly different in terms of design, materials and other visual qualities. Instead, the new addition should take its design cues from, but not copy, the historic building. Figure 11. The addition to this early-20th century Gothic Revival-style church provides space for offices, a great hall for gatherings and an accessible entrance (left). The stucco finish, metal roof, narrow gables and the Gothic-arched entrance complement the architecture of the historic church. Placing the addition in back where the ground slopes away ensures that it is subordinate and minimizes its impact on the church (below). A variety of design techniques can be effective ways to differentiate the new construction from the old, while respecting the architectural qualities and vocabulary of the historic building, including the following: • Incorporate a simple, recessed, small-scale hyphen to physically separate the old and the new volumes or set the addition back from the wall plane(s) of the historic building. • Avoid designs that unify the two volumes into a single architectural whole. The new addition may include simplified architectural features that reflect, but do not duplicate, similar features on the historic building. This approach will not impair the existing building's historic character as long as the new structure is subordinate in size and clearly differentiated and distinguishable so that the identity of the historic structure is not lost in a new and larger composition. The historic building must be clearly identifiable and its physical integrity must not be compromised by the new addition. 7 Design Guidance for Compatible New Additions to Historic Buildings BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 11 8 • Use building materials in the same color range or value as those of the historic building. The materials need not be the same as those on the historic building, but they should be harmonious; they should not be so different that they stand out or distract from the historic building. (Even clear glass can be as prominent as a less transparent material. Generally, glass may be most appropriate for small-scale additions, such as an entrance on a secondary elevation or a connector between an addition and the historic building.) • Base the size, rhythm and alignment of the new addition's window and door openings on those of the historic building. • Respect the architectural expression of the historic building type. For example, an addition to an institutional building should maintain the architectural character associated with this building type rather than using details and elements typical of residential or other building types. These techniques are merely examples of ways to differentiate a new addition from the historic building while ensuring that the addition is compatible with it. Other ways of differentiating a new addition from the historic building may be used as long as they maintain the primacy of the historic building. Working within these basic principles still allows for a broad range of architectural expression that can range from stylistic similarity to contemporary distinction. The recommended design approach for an addition is one that neither copies the historic building exactly nor stands in stark contrast to it. Figure 12. This 1954 synagogue (left) is accessed through a monumental entrance to the right. The new education wing (Jar right) added to it features the same vertical elements and color and, even though it is quite large, its smaller scale and height ensure that it is secondary to the historic resource. Figure 13. A glass and metal structure was constructed in the courtyard as a restaurant when this 1839 building was converted to a hotel. Although such an addition might not be appropriate in a more public location, it is compatible here in the courtyard of this historic building. Figure 14. This glass addition was erected at the back of an 1895 former brewery during rehabilitation to provide another entrance. The addition is compatible with the plain character of this secondary elevation. BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 12 Revising an Incompatible Design for a New Addition to Meet the Standards ·il-1---~--l-il--l-i---E ~--===■1-~.:=11·--■--■- Figure 15. The rehabilitation of a c. 1930 high school auditorium for a clinic and offices proposed two additions: a one-story entrance and reception area on this elevation (a); and a four-story elevator and stair tower on another side (b). The gabled entrance (c) first proposed was not compatible with the flat-roofed auditorium and the design of the proposed stair tower (d) was also incompatible and overwhelmed the historic building. The designs were revised (e-f) resulting in new additions that meet the Standards (g-h). 9 BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 13 10 Incompatible New Additions to Historic Buildings New Addition Figure 16. The proposal to add three row houses to the rear ell of this early-19th century residential property doubles its size a11d does not meet the Standards .. Figure 17. The small addition on the left is starkly different and it is not compatible with the eclectic, late-19th century house. Figure 18. The expansion of a one-and one-half story historic bungalow (left) with a large two-story rear addition (right) has greatly altered and obscured its distinctive shape and form. Figure 19. The upper two floors of this early-20th century office building were part of the original design, but were not built. During rehabilitation, the two stories were finally constructed. This treatment does not meet the Standards because the addition has given the building an appearance it never had historically. Figure 20. The height, as well as the design, of these two-story rooftop additions overwhelms the two-story and the one-story, low-rise historic buildings. BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 14 New Addition New Additions in Densely-Built Environments In built-up urban areas, locating a new addition on a less visible side or rear elevation may not be possible simply because there is no available space. In this instance, there may be alternative ways to help preserve the historic character. One approach when connecting a new addition to a historic building on a primary elevation is to use a hyphen to separate them. A subtle variation in material, detailing and color may also provide the degree of differentiation necessary to avoid changing the essential proportions and character of the historic building. A densely-built neighborhood such as a downtown commercial core offers a particular opportunity to design an addition that will have a minimal impact on the historic building. Often the site for such an addition is a vacant lot where another building formerly stood. Treating the addition as a separate or infill building may be the best approach when designing an addition that will have the least impact on the historic building and the district. In these instances there may be no need for a direct visual link to the historic building. Height and setback from the street should generally be consistent with those of the historic building and other surrounding buildings in the district. Thus, in most urban commercial areas the addition should not be set back from the far;ade of the historic building. A tight urban setting may sometimes even accommodate a larger addition if the primary elevation is designed to give the appearance of being several buildings by breaking up the facade into elements that are consistent with the scale of the historic building and adjacent buildings. Figure 21. Both wings of this historic L-shaped building (top), which fronts on two city streets, adjoined vacant lots. A two-story addition was constructed on one lot (above, left) and a six-story addition was built on the other (above, right). Like the historic building, which has two different facades, the compatible new additions are also different and appear to be separate structures rather than part of the historic building. Figure 22. The proposed new addition is compatible with the historic buildings that remain on the block. Its design with multiple storefronts helps break up the mass. 11 BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 15 12 Rooftop Additions The guidance provided on designing a compatible new addition to a historic building applies equally to new rooftop additions. A rooftop addition should preserve the character of a historic building by preserving historic materials, features and form; and it should be compatible but differentiated from the historic building. However, there are several other design principles that apply specifically to rooftop additions. Generally, a rooftop addition should not be more than one story in height to minimize its visibility and its impact on the proportion and profile of the historic building. A rooftop addition should almost always be set back at least one full bay from the primary elevation of the building, as well as from the other elevations if the building is free-standing or highly visible. It is difficult, if not impossible, to minimize the impact of adding an entire new floor to relatively low buildings, such as small-scale residential or commercial structures, even if the new addition is set back from the plane of the fac;ade. Constructing another floor on top of a small, one, two or three-story building is seldom appropriate for buildings of this size as it would measurably alter the building's proportions and profile, and negatively impact its historic character. On the other hand, a rooftop addition on an eight-story building, for example, in a historic district consisting primarily of tall buildings might not affect the historic character because the new construction may blend in with the surrounding buildings and be only minimally visible within the district. A rooftop addition in a densely-built urban area is more likely to be compatible on a building that is adjacent to similarly-sized or taller buildings. A number of methods may be used to help evaluate the effect of a proposed rooftop addition on a historic building and district, including pedestrian sight lines, three- dimensional schematics and computer-generated design. However, drawings generally do not provide a true "picture" of the appearance and visibility of a proposed rooftop addition. For this reason, it is often necessary to construct a rough, temporary, full-size or skeletal mock up of a portion of the proposed addition, which can then be photographed and evaluated from critical vantage points on surrounding streets. Figure 23. Colored flags marking the location of a proposed penthouse addition (a) were placed on the roof to help evaluate the impact and v isibility of an addition planned for this historic furniture store (b). Based on this evaluation, the addition was constructed as proposed. It is minimally visible and compatible with the 1912 structure (c). The tall parapet wall conceals the addition from the street below (d). BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 16 Figure 24. How to Evaluate a Proposed Rooftop Addition. A sight-line study (above) only factors in views from directly across the street, which can be very restrictive and does not illustrate the full effect of an addition from other public rights of way. A mock up (above, right) or a mock up enhanced by a computer-generated rendering (below, right) is essential to evaluate the impact of a proposed rooftop addition on the historic building. Figure 25. It was possible to add a compatible, three-story, penthouse addition to the roof of this five-story, historic bank building because the addition is set far back, it is surrounded by taller buildings and a deep parapet conceals almost all of the addition from below. Figure 26. A rooftop addition would have negatively impacted the character of the primary facade (right) of this mid-19th century,four-story structure and the low-rise historic district. However, a third floor was successfully added on the two-story rear portion (below) of the same building with little impact to the building or the district because it blends in with the height of the adjacent building. 13 BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 17 14 Figure 27. Although the new brick stair/elevator tower (left) is not visible from the front (right), it is on a prominent side elevation of this 1890 stone bank. The compatible addition is set back and does not compete with the historic building. Photos: Chadd Gossmann, Aurora Photography, LLC. Designing a New Exterior Addition to a Historic Building This guidance should be applied to help in designing a compatible new addition that that will meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation: • A new addition should be simple and unobtrusive in design, and should be distinguished from the historic building- a recessed connector can help to differentiate the new from the old. • A new addition should not be highly visible from the public right of way; a rear or other secondary elevation is usually the best location for a new addition. • The construction materials and the color of the new addition should be harmonious with the historic building materials. • The new addition should be smaller than the historic building-it should be subordinate in both size and design to the historic building. The same guidance should be applied when designing a compatible rooftop addition, plus the following: • A rooftop addition is generally not appropriate for a one, two or three-story building-and often is not appropriate for taller buildings. • A rooftop addition should be minimally visible. • Generally, a rooftop addition must be set back at least one full bay from the primary elevation of the building, as well as from the other elevations if the building is freestanding or highly visible. • Generally, a rooftop addition should not be more than one story in height. • Generally, a rooftop addition is more likely to be compatible on a building that is adjacent to similarly-sized or taller buildings. Figure 28. A small addition (left) was constructed when this 1880s train station was converted for office use. The paired doors with transoms and arched windows on the compatible addition reflect, but do not replicate, the historic building (right). BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 18 Figure 29. This simple glass and brick entrance (left) added to a secondary elevation of a 1920s school building (right) is compatible with the original structure. Summary Because a new exterior addition to a historic building can damage or destroy significant materials and can change the building's character, an addition should be considered only after it has been determined that the new use cannot be met by altering non-significant, or secondary, interior spaces. If the new use cannot be met in this way, then an attached addition may be an acceptable alternative if carefully planned and designed. A new addition to a historic building should be constructed in a manner that preserves significant materials, features and form, and preserves the building's historic character. Finally, an addition should be differentiated from the historic building so that the new work is compatible with-and does not detract from -the historic building, and cannot itself be confused as historic. Additional Reading Byard, Paul Spencer. The Architecture of N ew Additions: Design and Regulation. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1998. Day, Steven, AIA. "Modernism Meets History: New Additions to Historic Structures." Preservation Seattle [Historic Seattle's online monthly preservation magazine.] May 2003 . www.historicseattle.org/preserva ti on sea ttle/pub licpolicy/ defaultmay2.htm. lllcentives! A Guide to the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program for Income-Producing Properties. "Avoiding Incompatible Treatments: New Additions & Rooftop Additions." Technical Preservation Services Branch, National Park Service. Online at www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/. Interpreting the Standards Bulletins (ITS). Technical Preservation Services Branch, National Park Service. Online at www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/. New Additions to Historic Buildings. Technical Preservation Services Branch, National Park Service . Online at www.nps. gov/history/hps/tps/. O'Connell, Kim A. "Making Connections." Traditional Building. March/April 2004. (Vol. 17, No. 2), pp. 12-15. 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, rev . 1990. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. (Authors: W. Brown Morton, III, Gary L. Hume, Kay D. Weeks, and H. Ward Jandl. Project Directors: Anne E. Grimmer and Kay D. Weeks.) Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division, 1992. Online at www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/. Semes, Steven W. "Dilierentiated and Compatible: The Secretary's Standards revisited." Traditional Building. February 2009 . (Vol. 22, No. 1), pp . 20-23. Semes, Steven W. The Future of the Past: A Conservation Ethic for Architecture, Urbanism, and Historic Preservation. (In association with The Institute of Classical Architecture and Classical America.) New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 2009. Figure 30. The small addition on the right of this late-19th century commercial structure is clearly secondary and compatible in size, materials and design with the historic building. 15 BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 19 16 Figure 31. An elevator/stair tower was added at the back of this Richardsonian Romanesque-style theater when it was rehabilitated. Rough-cut stone and simple cut-out openings ensure that the addition is compatible and subordinate to the historic building. Photo: Chuck Liddy, AJA. Acknowledgements Anne E. Grimmer, Senior Architectural Historian, Technical Preservation Services Branch, National Park Service, revised Preservation Brief 14, written by Kay D. Weeks and first published in 1986. The revised Brief features all new illustrations and contains expanded and updated design guidance on the subject of new additions that has been developed by the Technical Preservation Services Branch since the original publication of the Brief. Several individuals generously contributed their time and expertise to review the revision of this Preservation Brief, including: Sharon C. Park, FAIA, Chief, Architectural History and Historic Preservation, Smithsonian Institution; Elizabeth Tune and Karen Brandt, Department of Historic Resources, Commonwealth of Virginia; and Phillip Wisley and David Ferro, Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State. The Technical Preservation Services professional staff, in particular Michael J . Auer, Jo Ellen Hensley, Gary Sachau and Rebecca Shiffer, also provided important guidance in the development of this publication. All illustrations are from National Park Service files unless otherwise credited. Front cover image: Detail of new addition shown in Figure 4. Photo: © Maxwell MacKenzie. This publication has been prepared pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop and make available information concerning historic properties. The Technical Preservation Services Branch, National Park Service, prepares standards, guidelines and other educational materials on responsible historic preservation treatments for a broad public audience. Additional information about the programs of Technical Preservation Services is available on the website at www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps. Comments about this publication should be addressed to: Charles E. Fisher, Technical Preservation Publications Program Manager, Technical Preservation Services-2255, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240. This publication is not copyrighted and can be reproduced without penalty. Normal procedures for credit to the author and the National Park Service are appreciated. ISBN: 978-0-16-085869-7 U.S. Government Printing Office Stock Number: 024-005-01280-0 August2010 BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 20 National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services National Center for Cultural Resources NEW ADDITIONS ITS Interpreting NUMBER 3 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Subject: New Additions to Mid-size Historic Buildings Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Historic Character 9. Compatible New Additions/Alterations 10. Reversibility of New Additions/Alterations Issue: Sometimes it may be necessary to add extra space to a historic building when it is being rehabilitated to satisfy new use requirements. The best adaptive use is always one that requires the least amount of change to the historic building, which in- cludes being able to fit the new use into the existing structure. But even comparatively large historic buildings may need more space to house certain practical functions that were not part of the historic use, such as mechanical equipment, an elevator shaft, or a stair tower, or just to provide more rentable or occupiable space to make the project economically viable. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation per- mit new additions to historic buildings if the new addition is compatible with the historic building and its historic character. A new addition will usually meet the Standards if: (1) it is located at the rear, or on another secondary and inconspicuous eleva- tion of the building; (2) its size and scale are limited and appro- priate for the historic building; (3) the new addition does not obscure character-defining features of the historic building; and (4) the new addition is designed in such a way that clearly differ- entiates the new from the old. Application 1 (Compatible addition): Rehabilitated into apart- ments, this two and one-half story brick structure was originally constructed in 1887 as an orphanage, but most recently had been used for offices. This building, L-shaped in plan, extends along-a ma- jor street for most of a city block, and it is anchored by a three-story double- towered entrance at one end and a smaller simpler tower at the other end. The developer determined that more room was needed to ensure the financial success of the conversion of this building into residential apartments. Accordingly, a new two-story addition was planned at the rear and side of the former orphanage. Constructed of brick, and painted to help blend with the historic building that is also painted, the addition is simply designed, and features flat-arched win- dows with two-over-two sash that contrast with the rounded arches of the historic windows. This new addition meets the Standards. It is clearly differentiated from the historic build- ing, and it is compatible in materials, design, size, and scale. A row of townhouses in front of the new addition further minimizes its visibility from the street. The side wing that extends behind the main entrance to the build- ing prior to rehabilitation, and construction of the new addition. The main front entrance of the orphange after its conversion to residential apartments. The new addition at the rear of the side wing is unobtrusive, and compatible with the building’s historic character. Townhouses (on the right) in front of the addition further limit its visibility. BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 21 Application 2 (Compatible addition): A historic three-story, 1879 brick school building, long abandoned, was rehabilitated for use as a women’s and children’s center. The school is a square, Italianate building with decorative towers at each corner, now flat-roofed since the loss many years ago of their Romanesque-arched open bell towers. Although the existing building was not small, it lacked sufficient space to fulfill the center’s needs for private and commu- nal living and dining areas for the residents, as well as for adminis- tration and staff offices. To provide additional space, two small non-significant additions were removed and a three-story brick ad- dition was constructed at the rear of the school. The new brick is harmonious with the historic brick and the design of the addition is very simple. To further differentiate the addition from the historic building, the windows in the new addition have flat arches and are very plain and unadorned in contrast to the more decorative win- dow openings and stone sills on the original schoolhouse. The new addition is compatible in size, scale, materials and location with the historic building and, thus, meets the Standards. The rear elevation of the school building before the removal of the two later, non-significant additions. The simple design of the new addition at the rear of the building is completely compatible with the historic character. Proposed Addition Existing Building The school, which is prominently situated on a corner, is shown after rehabilitation. The new addition at the back (right) cannot be seen from the corner. Anne Grimmer, Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. July 1999, ITS Number 3 BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 22 National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services NEW ADDITIONS ITS Interpreting UMBER The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for RehabilitationN 18 Subject: New Additions to Mid-size Historic Buildings Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Historic Character 9. Compatible New Additions/Alterations 10. Reversibility of New Additions Issue: The rehabilitation of some historic buildings involves new construction creating an addition to the original building. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards require that such an addition be compatible with the historic building yet differenti- ated from it, and that the overall character of a property shall be preserved. Factors that affect the relationship of the addi- tion to the original building are its size, placement, form and materials. However, because of the varied interplay between these factors, it not possible to establish specific criteria for each that will apply in all combinations even in the context of a particular historic building. The form and materials of an addition placed at the side of a building, for instance, might need to be quite different from those of an addition located at the rear. Moreover, each historic building presents a unique set of circumstances to which an addition must respond, and the rehabilitation of some historic buildings may not be able to accept any addition and still meet the Standards. Successful additions can result from quite varied design approaches, but common to most additions that meet the Standards are the general concepts of similarity and subordination. The slight recess at the intersection of the addition (left) and the historic facade (right) allows the visual mass of the original build- ing to remain unchanged. Application 1 (Compatible treatment, Appropriate addition): Constructed in 1914, this three-story apartment building was built to the front property line of its site. Architectural detailing in face brick and stone distinguish the facade from the plain side walls of common brick. The addition which is roughly half the size of the original building attaches along the full length of one of the plain, side elevations. The street elevation of the addition is in the same plane as the original facade, consistent with other buildings in the historic streetscape. Although similar in form and materials, the composition and details of the new facade are more simplified. The distinction between the old and the new is reinforced by a narrow recessed connector faced with a glass curtain wall. The size and placement of the connector prevent the glass and metal from becoming too sharp a contrast that would make the connector itself an incompatible feature. The successful intersection of old and new continues on the interior where the character of the former exterior wall is preserved. The brick surface remains punctuated by the original window openings that have simply been infilled with painted panels. The size, and details of the addition make it distinctly subordinate to the original building, and its placement avoids obscuring any character-defin- ing features. BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 23 Application 2 (Incompatible treatment, inappropriate addition): This freestanding Colonial Revival style house was built in 1928 on a large site that remains somewhat wooded. The proposed addition has a footprint nearly twice the size of the original building, which is far too large to be offset even by its location at the rear of the house. There is little in terms of design or proposed materials to distinguish the new construction from the original house. In addition the architectural elaboration of the two new side entrances makes them strong elements that diminish the importance of existing character-defining features. The historic setting is also altered by so large an addition as well as the extensive paving for drives and parking lots. Shown is the side of the historic house illustrated in the elevation (below, left). Shown as shaded in the drawings, the relatively large size of the proposed addition is apparent. The plan view shows the vast expanse of paving. Application 3 (Compatible addition): This small roadside hotel has been modified and expanded many times since its con- struction in 1853. The recent rehabilitation included another addition at the end of the rear wing. It is similar to the existing rear wing yet differentiated. Though the color is the same, the addition is stucco rather than brick. Windows are the same type and proportion, but the new ones have a simple lintel rather than a brick arch. The width of the addition and the slope of the its roof match the rear wing but a small recessed connector separates the new from the old..The simplicity of the design and the location at the rear minimize the impact of this compatible addition. Q--D Rear of hotel showing original building (left), new addition and recessed connector. The new addition is not visible from the front of the building. John Sandor, Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. October 2001, ITS Number 18 BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 24 REAR ADDITIONS ITS Interpreting NUMBER 37 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Re ha bil i ta tion Issue: Whenever possible, new additions should be con- structed on rear elevations where they will have less of an impact on the building’s historic integrity. Rear additions—like all new additions—should be subordinate to the original build- ing in size, scale, and massing, as well as design. Additions that feature a higher roofl ine, that extend beyond the side of the building, or that have a signifi cantly greater footprint than the original building are usually not compatible. The expansion of modest scale houses or those in prominent locations (such as a corner lot) can be particularly challenging. Standard 1 states that “A property should be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defi ning characteristics of the building and its site and envi- ronment.” In cases where an overly large addition is required in order to accommodate the owner’s programmatic needs, a more suitable building should be identifi ed. Rear additions that meet the Standards are compatible in de- sign, yet diff erentiated from the old building, often through a process of simplifi cation. For example, if the original house features narrow clapboard siding, multi-light double-hung sash windows and an elaborate decorative cornice, the new ad- dition could be sided with diff erent clapboards, one-over-one double-hung sash, and a less detailed cornice. New materials need not match exactly the historic materials but should be appropriate to the building type, compatible with existing materials, and unobtrusive in appearance. Rear additions that do not require signifi cant removal of exist- ing materials may help retain the house’s historic appearance and character. Connecting the new addition to the historic building with a modest hyphen can limit removal of historic materials, drastic structural changes, and irreversible changes to the original building. A hyphen can also more clearly dif- ferentiate new from old construction. Rear additions can also provide the opportunity to make a building accessible, rather than constructing ramps on a more prominent elevation. Top and Above: This historic house had been altered numerous times in the past--including multiple additions to the rear of the building. Application 1 (Incompatible treatment): This modest resi- dence began as a two-story log house. Later, the main portion of the house was converted into a distinctive Bungalow-style residence. Over time, multiple additions were also made along the natural grade at the rear of the house. Prior to rehabilita- tion, these later additions were quite deteriorated. National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services Subject: Rear Additions to Historic Houses Applicable Standards: 9. Compatible New Additions / Alterations 10. Reversibility of New Additions / Alterations BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 25 These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting de ter mi na tions, based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, are not nec es sar i ly ap pli ca ble beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. Chad Randl, Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service June 2006, ITS Number 37 When the project began, the existing rear additions were determined to be beyond repair and were demolished. A re- placement addition of a similar size to those removed would likely have met the Standards. However, the new addition constructed on the rear doubled the size of the structure as it existed before the rehabilitation. As built, the cladding, open- ings, and roofl ines of the new addition were appropriate to the building’s historic character. Yet this was not suffi cient to overcome the eff ect of an addition substantially more massive than the additions that were demolished. With two full fl oors, a footprint that was much deeper than the previous additions, a new deck extending from the rear and side elevations, and signifi cant grade changes at the rear, this work competes for attention with the historic structure to which it is attached and has seriously impacted the property’s historic character. The size of this new rear addition—incorporating two fl oors and an ex- tended depth--combined with substantial changes to the site overwhelm the modest historic house. Right: The house prior to rehabilitation. Below right: Drawing of proposed rear addition and hyphen, show- ing how the new construction was subordinate in size to the historic house. Below left: New addition and connecting hyphen. The new materials and fenestration complement, yet are distinct from, the historic house. Application 2 (Compatible treatment): This large brick house was converted for use as offi ces. As part of the rehabilitation a new addition was constructed at the rear of the house. With a brick ground fl oor and a clapboard upper level set beneath a roofl ine that was lower in height than the original structure, the rear addition’s design was both distinct from, and compat- ible with, the size, scale, massing and architectural features of the historic house. The use of varied materials on the addition (brick below, clapboard above) was handled with restraint in a manner that did not compete visually with the main house. The addition provided space to locate new systems for the entire structure as well as accessibility to the historic house at grade, making exterior ramps unnecessary. A hyphen (with a lower roofl ine and narrower footprint) separated the new addition from the old, further distinguishing the various periods of construction and reducing the addition’s massing. The hyphen required only a minimal amount of distur- bance to the rear wall of the historic house and left the plan of the main house intact. If the addition were ever removed, the house’s historic integrity would remain undiminished. BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 26 National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services ROOFTOP ADDITIONS ITS Interpreting NUMBER The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation36 Issue: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Reha- bilitation allow the construction of new additions if they do not destroy significant fabric, and if their design is compat- ible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property and the historic district if applicable. However, not all historic buildings can be enlarged in a manner that is consistent with the Standards, whether for reasons of size, siting, or location within a district. With regard to rooftop additions, the Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Build- ings recommend that new rooftop additions be designed so that they are inconspicuous from the public right-of-way, are set back from the primary elevation of the building, and do not damage character-defining features of the historic building. Rooftop additions are almost never appropriate for buildings that are less than four stories high. Gener- ally, rooftop additions should not be more than one story in height, and are more compatible on buildings that are adjacent to taller buildings or dense urban environments. Rooftop additions that do not meet these principles gener- ally will not meet the Standards. Application 1 (Incompatible treatment): A school built in 1923, and expanded in later years, was proposed to be re- habilitated for continued educational use as a community resource center, a housing complex for senior citizens, a day school, and a boarding school. The building was less than three stories, sat prominently on the street and was visible on all elevations. Under the initial proposal, boarding stu- dents would live in the historically unoccupied attic of the original, 1923, portion of the school. Because the attic lacked adequate headroom, dormers were proposed for the visible front and side elevations. The Stan- The school prior to rehabilitation. Proposed rooftop additions to school building. A drawing of the proposed dormers shows the impact this construc- tion would have had on the physical fabric and the historic character of the building. Subject: Rooftop Additions Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Historic Character 5. Preservation of Distinctive Features, Finishes, and Craftsmanship 9. Compatible New Additions/Alterations BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 27 These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service June 2006, ITS Number 36 dards call for additions to be differentiated as new elements. The proposed dormers were very large and out-of-scale with the historic building, featuring an arched profile and contem- porary windows that contrasted strongly with the relatively traditional and subdued materials and design of the Colonial Revival structure. In addition, the dormers would not only impose a new form upon the roof, but would also require substantial alteration of the physical fabric of the roof itself. For these reasons, the proposal did not meet the Standards. Application 2 (Compatible treatment): A rooftop addition was proposed for a four-story apartment building that was being rehabilitated for continued residential use. The build- ing was constructed in 1914 in a simply articulated, Classical Revival style with a slightly-raised limestone base, a brick fa- cade, beltcourses, and some decoratively-carved keystones on the first floor. It is capped by a simple but prominent den- tilled cornice. This building is one of several large apartment buildings located in a primarily small scale, single-family resi- dential neighborhood. It is surrounded on both sides and across the street by two to two-and-one-half story rowhous- es, and therefore is highly visible within the district. For this reason alone, it might appear that the addition of any more height to this building would not meet the Standards. However, a new floor was added that is only minimally vis- ible on the non-significant side elevations and is impercepti- ble from directly across the street. Setting the new floor into the flat roof plane lowered the profile of the addition to the height of a half story. The slanted front edge further mini- mized the appearance of the addition and concealed integral skylights. The mass blended with the solid, unadorned side walls of the historic building. This rooftop addition does not impact the historic character of the building and is in conformance with the Standards. This early twentieth century apartment building was actually con- structed as two buildings of harmonious but slightly different design. New rooftop addition and stairtower visible on the south elevation. New rooftop addition and stair- tower visible on the secondary north elevation, meets the Stan- dards, and is compatible with the historic building. BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 28