The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015-09-17 Historic PACKET HISTORIC COMMISSION CLG STUDY SESSION AGENDA September 17, 2015 at 11:00 A.M. 1. Discussion of Commissioner photo surveys. 2. Review and Discussion of Positive and Negative Effects Memo 3. Review and Discussion of Draft Historic Exterior Alteration Standards 4. Review and Discuss Case Studies Memo DATE: September 17, 2015 TO: Ashland Historic Commission FROM: Maria Harris, Planning Manager RE: Discussion of Draft Standards and Review Process for Exterior Alterations to Historic Contributing Structures SUMMARY The purpose of the September 17 study session is for the Historic Commission to begin reviewing and discussing draft standards and a review process for exterior alterations to historic contributing structures. BACKGROUND In effort to help facilitate the discussion, staff has outlined a set of issues and questions for the Historic Commission to consider in reviewing the draft standards and review process. If the Historic Commission recommends amending the land use ordinance to include a new and additional review process for properties located in the historic districts, staff anticipates these items will be asked by property owners, the Planning Commission, and the City Council during the public hearing process. 1. Project Goal The goal of the current Certified Local Government (CLG) project is to develop a package of regulations and incentives to address changes in exterior materials to residential buildings that can impact the integrity of historic structures and the surrounding districts. The Historic Commission identified the establishment of more detailed rehabilitation and remodel standards for residential districts as a high priority project in the Ashland Preservation Plan 2009- 2018. Specifically, those items that do not require a building permit, such as siding and window replacement, were noted as impacting the loss of historic integrity. As a result, incompatible exterior materials were identified as the focus of the current project. It is important to note that the current project is limited to exterior materials such as siding, windows, doors, and roofing, and does not address the design of additions to historic contributing residential structures or new single-family residential homes. Questions for the Historic Commission to consider: Does the Commission believe the replacement of exterior building materials continues to impact the integrity of historic structures and the surrounding districts? Does the Commission believe standards and a review process will be effective in addressing the problem? Page 2 of 2 Does the Commission agree with the project goal? Specifically, is the Commission in agreement with focusing on exterior building materials as a first step in addressing changes to historic buildings that do not currently require a planning action? 2. Scope and Flexibility of Process Nine percent of the total number of properties in Ashland are located in the residential historic districts and identified as historic contributing resources (from the National Register nominations, 1999-2002). The local review process for the replacement of exterior materials on historic buildings is limited to those actions that require a planning application (e.g., site design review, conditional use permit, variance) and the advisory recommendations of the Historic Review Board for building permits. The system for reviewing development and construction in historic districts has been in through a ministerial review (i.e., building permit). While staff believes the community has generally been supportive of the value of historic districts, the community is also accustomed to fairly uninvolved process when property owners elect to do additions and remodels. Furthermore, replacement of exterior materials on a residential structure by itself permit. As a result, property owners, contractors, Planning Commission, and the City Council will likely have questions and concerns regarding the benefits of adding a new review process, the amount of time the new process will add on for property owners wishing to make improvements to their home, and the amount of additional costs property owners will face as a result of the new process (e.g., preparation of application materials, attending meetings, etc.). Questions for the Historic Commission to consider: Do some incompatible exterior materials appear to be more prevalent than others? --the- counter) level? Is matching design, texture, materials, dimension, shape, and scale of existing materials reasonable in all cases? 3. Implementation Another area to consider is the resources required to administer a new review process. The Historic Commission and staff will likely spend additional time explaining new standards to property owners. Three case studies are included in the packet. Staff would like to run through or test the draft standards and review process by walking through these case studies to get a sense of how the standards and process would work as well as potential impacts to property owner timelines and resources (see item 2 above) and Historic Commission and staff work load. ATTACHMENTS Positive and Negative Effects Memo Draft Historic Exterior Alteration Review Process Case Studies DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us DiscussionofPositiveandNegativeImpacts HistoricExteriorAlterationStandards Ashland,Oregon September10,2015 1.INTRODUCTIONANDBACKGROUND AttherequestofthePlanningDivisionoftheCityof!ƭŷƌğƓķ͸ƭCommunityDevelopmentDepartment, ArchitecturalResourcesGroup(ARG)haspreparedthefollowingmemorandumthatsummarizesthe anticipatedimpacts(positiveandnegative)ofrevisingthe/źƷǤ͸ƭreviewprocessasitrelatestoexterior alterationsofresidentialhistoricresources.Aresidentialhistoricresourceisdefinedasaresidential propertythatis(1)listedontheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesasanindividualresource,(2)listed ontheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesasadistrictcontributor,and/or(3)adesignatedcontributor toalocalhistoricdistrict. Oneofthehighestpriorityprojectsidentifiedin!ƭŷƌğƓķ͸ƭHistoricPreservationPlan(completed2008)is theestablishmentofmoredetailedrehabilitationandremodelstandardsforcontributingresidential propertieswithin!ƭŷƌğƓķ͸ƭhistoricdistricts.Ofparticularconcernareexteriormodificationsthatdonot requireabuildingpermitorstructuralreview,butcanadverselyimpacthistoricintegrity,suchas: Sidingreplacement Windowreplacement Doorreplacement Roofcladdingreplacement TheHistoricPreservationPlanfoundthatthelackofCityreviewofsuchalterationstocontributing residentialpropertieshascausedsomelossofintegritywithinthesehistoricdistricts.Toreducefurther lossofintegrity,thePlanningDivisionandARGareanalyzinghowtocreateareviewprocessfornon structural,exteriormodificationstoresidentialhistoricbuildingsthatdonotrequireabuildingpermit.In doingso,weunderstandthatanyrevisionstotheresidentialreviewprocessmustbefairandequitable andmustenjoywidespreadcommunitysupport.Tothatend,thismemorandumoutlinesthemany positiveimpactsofimplementingsuchrevisions,whilealsoconsideringsomeofthepotentialnegative impacts. AsSalemPreservationOfficerandCulturalResourcesPlannerKimberliFitzgeraldrecentlyobserved, ͻƦƩźǝğƷĻpropertyownerswhoownandmaintainhistoricpropertiesprovideacommunitybenefitand 1 deservebothincentivesandrecognitionforthisƭĻƩǝźĭĻ͵ͼThatsentimentneedstopervadethe/źƷǤ͸ƭ approachtodevelopingexpandedexterioralterationstandards. 1 Kimberli,Fitzgerald,ͻ/ŷğƩƷźƓŭtheRightCourseforYourLocalPreservationtƩƚŭƩğƒͲͼ TheAllianceReview,JanuaryFebruary 2015,21. DiscussionofPositiveandNegativeImpactsArchitecturalResourcesGroup HistoricExteriorAlterationStandardsSeptember10,2015 2.UNDERSTANDINGHISTORICSIGNIFICANCEANDINTEGRITY MosthistoricresourcesinAshlandarehistoricbecausetheyarecontributingpropertiestooneoffour historicdistrictsthatarelistedontheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces(NRHP).Thesefourdistrictsare theDowntownHistoricDistrict,theRailroadAdditionHistoricDistrict,theSiskiyouHargadineHistoric District,andtheSkidmoreAcademyHistoricDistrict. TheNRHPistheƓğƷźƚƓ͸ƭmasterinventoryofknownhistoricresourcesandincludeslistingsofbuildings, structures,sites,objectsanddistrictsthatpossesshistoric,architectural,engineering,archaeologicalor culturalsignificanceatthenational,stateorlocallevel. 2 Tobesignificant,apropertymustbeͻğƭƭƚĭźğƷĻķwithanimportanthistoricĭƚƓƷĻǣƷ͵ͼTheNRHP identifiesfoursignificancecriteria,ofwhichatleastonemustbesatisfiedbythepropertyatthe national,state,orlocallevel: A. Propertyisassociatedwitheventsthathavemadeasignificantcontributiontothebroad patternsofourhistory. B. Propertyisassociatedwiththelivesofpersonssignificantinourpast. C. Propertyembodiesthedistinctivecharacteristicsofatype,period,ormethodofconstructionor representstheworkofamaster,orpossesseshighartisticvalues,orrepresentsasignificantand distinguishableentitywhosecomponentslackindividualdistinction. 3 D. Propertyhasyielded,orislikelytoyield,informationimportanttoprehistoryorhistory. IntheAshlandcase,thefourdistrictsidentifiedabovehavebeenfoundtobesignificantunderCriterion A(Events/PatternofEvents).TheDowntownHistoricDistricthasalsobeenfoundtobesignificantunder CriterionC(Architecture).SpecificareasofsignificanceidentifiedintherespectiveNationalRegister Nominationsaresummarizedbelow: DowntownHistoricDistrict:Commerce,Architecture,CommunityPlanning RailroadAdditionHistoricDistrict:CommerceandUrbanDevelopment,Culture;20thCentury Architecture SiskiyouHargadineHistoricDistrict:CommunityPlanningandDevelopment SkidmoreAcademyHistoricDistrict:Culture;20thCenturyArchitecture EachdistrictalsohasitsownPeriodofSignificance,whichisdefinedasthelengthoftimewhenthe districtwasassociatedwiththethemesthatqualifyitforlistingontheNationalRegister: DowntownHistoricDistrict:18791949 RailroadAdditionHistoricDistrict:18831949 SiskiyouHargadineHistoricDistrict:18841951 SkidmoreAcademyHistoricDistrict:18711949 2 NationalParkService,NationalRegisterBulletin:HowtoApplytheNationalRegisterCriteriaforEvaluation, Washington,DC:NationalParkService,updated1997,3. 3 NationalParkService,NationalRegisterBulletin:HowtoCompletetheNationalRegisterRegistrationForm,Washington,DC: NationalParkService,updated1997,75. 2 DiscussionofPositiveandNegativeImpactsArchitecturalResourcesGroup HistoricExteriorAlterationStandardsSeptember10,2015 Withineachdistrict,individualpropertiesareclassifiedaseithercontributingornoncontributing.A contributingpropertyisonethatisassociatedwithoneormoreoftheareasofhistoricsignificancefor whichthehistoricdistrictwasdesignatedandretainssufficientintegritytoconveythatassociation.A noncontributingpropertyisonethatisnotassociatedwiththeķźƭƷƩźĭƷ͸ƭhistoricsignificanceorretains insufficientintegritytoconveyanysuchassociation. Asstatedabove,themotivatingfactorforthiscoderevisioneffortisthelossof historicintegrity deriving frombuildingalterationsthatdonotcurrentlytriggeranykindofreviewbytheCityofAshland.Given that,itisworthtakingsometimetodescribetheconceptofhistoricintegrity,whichisrelatedtobut differentfromstructuralintegrityormaterialcondition.Toqualifyasahistoricresource,aproperty mustpossesssignificance,butitmustalsopossessͻŷźƭƷƚƩźĭintegrityofthosefeaturesnecessaryto 4 conveyitsƭźŭƓźŅźĭğƓĭĻ͵ͼThehistoricintegrityofapropertyistypicallyevaluatedwithrespecttothe sevenaspectsofintegrityidentifiedbytheNationalParkService: Location istheplacewherethehistoricpropertywasconstructedortheplacewherethehistoric eventoccurred. Setting isthephysicalenvironmentofahistoricproperty. Design isthecombinationofelementsthatcreatetheform,plan,space,structure,andstyleofa property. Materials arethephysicalelementsthatwerecombinedordepositedduringaparticularperiod oftimeandinaparticularpatternorconfigurationtoformahistoricproperty. Workmanship isthephysicalevidenceofthecraftsofaparticularcultureorpeopleduringany givenperiodinhistoryorprehistory. Feeling isaƦƩƚƦĻƩƷǤ͸ƭexpressionoftheaestheticorhistoricsenseofaparticularperiodoftime. Association isthedirectlinkbetweenanimportanthistoriceventorpersonandahistoric 5 property. IfdoneinamannerthatisincompatiblewithahistoricƦƩƚƦĻƩƷǤ͸ƭremaininghistoricfeatures,changes toexteriorfeaturessuchassiding,windowsanddoorscanadverselyimpacttheƦƩƚƦĻƩƷǤ͸ƭintegrityof design,materials,workmanshipandfeeling.Mostof!ƭŷƌğƓķ͸ƭhistoricresidentialpropertiesare significantbecausetheycontributetooneofthreesizable,residentialthemedhistoricdistricts.These propertiesmostlyconsistofgoodexamplesofperiodarchitectureandonlyahandfulexhibitsufficient designtobeconsideredarchitecturallandmarksintheirownright.Withinthiscontext,thelossof integrityposedbysuchalterationshasthepotentialtorenderthesepropertiesnolongercontributory totheirhistoricdistricts. 4 NationalParkService,HowtoApplytheNationalRegisterCriteriaforEvaluation(Washington,DC:U.S. DepartmentoftheInterior,1991),3. 5 Ibid.,4445. 3 DiscussionofPositiveandNegativeImpactsArchitecturalResourcesGroup HistoricExteriorAlterationStandardsSeptember10,2015 3.POTENTIALPOSITIVEIMPACTS WesummarizebelowtheanticipatedpositiveimpactsassociatedwithrevisingtheCityreviewprocess toconsiderexterioralterationsofresidentialhistoricresourcesthatdonotrequireabuildingpermit. 3.1Fostersretentionof!ƭŷƌğƓķ͸ƭdistinctivehistoriccharacter. Anexpandedresidentialreviewprogramwillfosterthepreservationof!ƭŷƌğƓķ͸ƭhistoricdistrictsby encouragingthesensitivemaintenanceandrepairofhistoricresidentialproperties.TheRailroad AdditionHistoricDistrict,theSiskiyouHargadineHistoricDistrict,andtheSkidmoreAcademyHistoric Districtsurround!ƭŷƌğƓķ͸ƭdowntownandtogetherincludemorethan800contributingproperties,the vastmajorityofwhichareresidential.Thisisanimpressivecollectionofhistoricpropertiesandhelps establish!ƭŷƌğƓķ͸ƭdeservedreputationasoneofthemostcharmingsmalltownsintheAmericanWest. Inaddition,thereareseveralpropertiesinAshlandthatarenotinthelocaldistrictsbutthatarelisted ontheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces.Withinthiscontext,encouragingthecarefultreatmentof residentialhistoricresourcesfostersanappreciationofwhatmakesAshlanddistinctive. ExpandingtheresidentialreviewprogramisalsoinkeepingwiththeCityof!ƭŷƌğƓķ͸ƭstatusasa CertifiedLocalGovernment(CLG).TheCLGprogram,whichisdesignedtopromotehistoricpreservation atthelocallevel,isafederal(NationalParkService)programthatisadministeredbytheOregonState HistoricPreservationOffice(SHPO).AsaCertifiedLocalGovernment(CLG),theCityofAshlandis committedtofosteringtheongoingintegrityandappreciationoftheĭźƷǤ͸ƭhistoricresources. 3.2Fostershigherpropertyvalues. Thepositiveeffectsthathistoricdesignationhasonpropertyvaluesiswelldocumented.A2007survey ofavailableresearch,forexample,conductedbyJosephMabry,HistoricPreservationOfficerfortheCity ofTucson,Arizona,identifiedseveralcommonthemes: ͻŷĻfindingsofrecentcomparativestudiesoftheeffectsofhistoricdistrictdesignationsovertime, conductedinmanydifferentregionsoftheU.S.,convergeonafewkeyfindings: Historicdistrictdesignationtypicallyincreasesresidentialpropertyvaluesby535%per decadeoverthevaluesinsimilar,undesignatedneighborhoods. Bothnationallydesignatedhistoricdistrictsandlocallydesignatedhistoricdistricts outperformsimilar,undesignatedneighborhoods,butdistrictsthatcarrybothlocaland nationaldesignationexperiencethehighestrelativeincreasesinpropertyvalues. Thevaluesofnewerpropertieswithindesignatedhistoricdistrictsincreasealongwiththose ofolderproperties. Localhistoricdistrictdesignationdecreasesinvestoruncertaintyandinsulatesproperty 6 valuesfromwildswingsinthehousingƒğƩƉĻƷ͵ͼ 6 JosephMabry,ͻ.ĻƓĻŅźƷƭofResidentialHistoricDistrictDesignationforPropertyhǞƓĻƩƭͲͼCityofTucson,2007,5.(Availableat http://preservationnj.org/site/ExpEng/images/images/pdfs/Historic%20District%20benefits_Mabry_%206707.pdf,accessed Jun15,2015.)SeealsoRandalMason,EconomicsandHistoricPreservation:AGuideandReviewoftheLiterature,TheBrookings Institution,2005;andDonovanRypkema,TheEconomicsofHistoricPreservation:ACommunityLeader'sGuide,NationalTrust forHistoricPreservation,2005. 4 DiscussionofPositiveandNegativeImpactsArchitecturalResourcesGroup HistoricExteriorAlterationStandardsSeptember10,2015 Byencouragingthatchangesmadetohistoricresidentialpropertiesbedoneinawaythatdoesnot compromisetheirhistoricintegrity,theproposedregulationsstrengthen!ƭŷƌğƓķ͸ƭexistinghistoric districtsandoverallcollectionofhistoricresources.Asaresult,theregulationshelptopreservehigher propertyvaluesand,asacorollary,ahigherlocaltaxbase. 3.3Presentsopportunitiesforstreamlinedreviewprocesses. Inconjunctionwithestablishingareviewprocessforexterioralterationsofresidentialhistoricresources thatdonotrequireabuildingpermit,theCityofAshlandhastheopportunitytostreamlinethereview processesforsimilarminorprojectsthatcurrentlyundergoaCityreviewprocesssuchasaLandUse Application,ConditionalUsePermit,orSiteDesignReview.Suchstreamliningwouldemphasizerelying onPlanningstaffreviewwhereverpossibleandkeepingreviewtimesandapplicationfeestoa minimum.Oneexampleofthetypesofchangesthatcouldbemadeare: Asspecifiedin18.5.2.020oftheUnifiedLandUseOrdinance,TypeISiteDesignReviewis requiredforexteriormodificationstostructuresthatareindividuallylistedontheNational Registerthatrequireabuildingpermit.Somesuchmodificationsarefairlyminor,suchasthe reconstructionofexteriorstairs.Instead,thereviewofsuchprojectscouldusethesame preliminaryapprovalreviewprocedureproposedforexterioralterationsthatdonotrequirea buildingpermit,therebybypassingthemoreexpensiveandlengthierSiteDesignReview process. Regardless,oneoftheprimarygoalsinundertakingthiseffortistostreamlinethereviewofminor alterationstohistoricpropertiesgenerally,ratherthansimplyestablishinganadditionalreviewprocess. TheproposedrevisionsbenefittheCitybyfosteringthepreservationofhistoricresources,whileatthe sametimebenefittinghomeownersbyofferingthemaclearer,simplerandquickerreviewprocess.As statedintheIntroduction,ownersofhistoricresidentialpropertiesprovideanimportantcommunity benefit,andshouldbetreatedassuchinthecourseofCityplanningreview. 3.4Presentsopportunitiestoconnecthomeownerstoresources. TheHistoricCommissionconsistofarchitects,historiansandbuilderswho,likemanyAshlandPlanning staffmembers,arewellversedinthemaintenanceandrehabilitationofhistoricbuildings.Areview processforminorexterioralterationsprovidesanopportunityforhomeownerstotapintothisexpertise tolearnhowtheycansensitivelyrehabilitatetheirbuildingsandwhatincentivesexisttohelpthemin thatprocess. AkeypartofthereviewprocesswillbeapreliminaryͻĭŷĻĭƉźƓͼwithPlanningstaffortheHistoric ReviewBoard(threerotatingmembersoftheHistoricCommission)todiscussproposedchanges BEFOREtherehasbeenaconsiderableoutlayofresourcesonthepartofthehomeowner.Thepurposes ofthispreliminarymeetingareatleastthreefold: ToofferdesignguidancetothehomeownerregardingpotentialrepairorͻźƓƉźƓķͼreplacement ofthearchitecturalfeaturesinquestion. 5 DiscussionofPositiveandNegativeImpactsArchitecturalResourcesGroup HistoricExteriorAlterationStandardsSeptember10,2015 Togivethehomeownercontactinformationforprofessionalswhospecializeinthe rehabilitationofhistoricbuildings.TheStateHistoricPreservationOffice(SHPO)maintainsa seriesofresourcelistsofpreservationcontractorsandconsultants(availableat http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/HCD/pages/publications.aspx)thatidentifyspecialistsinmany differentcategorieswhoarebasedinOregonorothernearbystates. Todescribetothehomeownerpreservationrelatedincentivesforwhichheorshemaybe eligible,includinglocalgrants,stategrants,statetaxbenefits,andzoningallowances.(See Appendix,ͻtƩĻƭĻƩǝğƷźƚƓIncentivesforthePrivateIƚƒĻƚǞƓĻƩ͵ͼΜ TheemphasisisonconnectinghomeownersΑearlyinthedesignprocessΑtotheinformationaland financialresourcestheyneedtoundertaketheirprojectwithoutendangeringtheintegrityoftheir historicproperty. 4.POTENTIALNEGATIVEIMPACTS TheefforttorevisetheCityreviewprocesstoconsiderexterioralterationsofresidentialhistoric resourcesthatdonotrequireabuildingpermitneedstobedoneinamannerthatreducesnegative impactsasmuchaspossible.Inparticular,thereviewprocessshouldbestructuredinamannerthat offsetsthepotentialperceptionthatthereviewprocesswillbecostlier,slower,moreonerous,orless predictableforhomeowners. TherearetwotypesofpotentialcoststothehomeownerassociatedwithanexpandedCityreview processforexterioralterations.Thefirstisthecostofanyapplicationfeesandthepreparationof applicationmaterialsassociatedwithsecuringahistoricpreservationpermit.Thesecondisthe potentiallyhighercostofrepairingorreplacinginkindahistoricfeature. Firstandforemost,anyreviewfeeassociatedwiththenewexterioralterationstandardsshouldbevery modest.Thisfeeshouldbetowardsthelowerendoftherangeofthe/źƷǤ͸ƭfeesforAdministrative Actions($28$335).AsdescribedaboveinSection3.3,expandingthereviewprocesstoincludecertain alterationstoresidentialhistoricresourcesprovidesanopportunitytostreamlinethereviewprocesses forsimilarminorprojectsthatcurrentlyundergoamoreelaborateCityreviewprocess.Doingsowould savehomeownersbothtimeandmoney.Forexample,thecurrentfeeforaTypeISiteDesignReviewis $1,012.ShiftingtoandAdministrativeActionfeewouldsavethehomeownerhundredsofdollars,while alsospeedinguptheprocess. Repairingorreplacingahistoricfeaturewithinkindmaterialscanbemoreexpensivethanother alternatives,butthesizeofthathighercostisoftenoverstatedandfailstotakelifecyclecostsinto account.Aproperlyrehabilitatedwoodwindow,forexample,willlikelylastmanytimesaslongasa vinyloraluminumreplacement,andmaybecomparably,oronlyslightlyless,energyefficient.Itis imperativethattheCityofAshlandworktogethomeownerstheinformationtheyneedtomakewell informeddecisionsaboutthelongtermcostimplicationsofthealterationstheyareconsidering.As describedaboveinSection3.4,akeyaspectoftheexterioralterationsreviewprocesswillbetogive homeownersanopportunityΑearlyintheprocessΑtodrawontheexpertiseofCityPlanningstaffand themembersoftheHistoricCommissiontounderstandtheramificationsofdifferentapproachesto modifyingtheirbuilding. Finally,theexterioralterationsreviewprocesscanaddcertaintytotheprocessiftheunderlying regulationsonwhichtheprocessisbasedclearlyitemizewhattypesofactionsaresubjecttoCity 6 DiscussionofPositiveandNegativeImpactsArchitecturalResourcesGroup HistoricExteriorAlterationStandardsSeptember10,2015 review.Inparticular,thenewregulationswillidentifythemanyactionsthatarefullyexemptfromthe reviewprocess,including,amongothers,routinemaintenance,repainting,landscaping,andany alterationnotvisiblefromthepublicrightofway.Theregulationswillbedraftedsoastobeas minimalistaspossible,whilestilladdressingtheidentifiedproblem:thealterationofhistoricresidential propertiesinamannerthatcompromisestheirhistoricintegritybutdoesnottriggerCityreview. 7 DiscussionofPositiveandNegativeImpactsArchitecturalResourcesGroup HistoricExteriorAlterationStandardsSeptember10,2015 APPENDIX:PRESERVATIONINCENTIVESFORTHEPRIVATEHOMEOWNER FollowingisasummaryofrelevantlocalandstateincentivesforprivatehomeownersinAshland planningtorehabilitateoraltertheirhistoricproperty.Theseincludetwoincentives(grantsandcode leniency)thattheCityofAshlandcouldestablish,alongwiththreeestablishedStateincentives. 1)LocalIncentive:CityGrantProgram TheCityofAshlandcouldestablishagrantprogramforhistoricallydesignatedresidentialproperties ƷŷğƷ͸ƭdesignedtoreducetheexpensesofmaintainingahistoricproperty.Inparticular,thesegrants couldoffsetthehighercoststhatsometimescomewithpursuinginkindreplacementofhistoric features(suchaswindowsorsiding).TheCityofSalemimplementedsuchaprogramafewyearsago andithasprovenquitepopular. CaseStudy:{ğƌĻƒ͸ƭResidentialToolboxGrantProgram FollowingadoptionofarevisedHistoricPreservationPlanin2010,theCityofSalemestablished aResidentialToolboxGrantProgram,whichprovidesfundstoownersofhistoricallydesignated residentialpropertiestohelpwithmaintenanceandrehabilitationrelatedexpenses.The programwasinitiallyimplementedusinggrantfundsfromCertifiedLocalGovernmentprogram oftheOregonStateHistoricPreservationOffice(SHPO).Theprogramisnowfundedbya combinationofCLGgrants,privatedonations,andaCityCouncilmatch,andapproximately $20,000ingrantsareawardedannually. Grantsareawardedviaadollarfordollarmatch,uptoamaximumof$1,000.(A$1,500project, forexample,wouldbeeligiblefora$750grant).Therearetwoapplicationcyclesperyear (FebruaryandJuly)andgrantsareawardedonafirstcome,firstservedbasis.Generally,eligible projectsmustbecompletedwithinfourtofivemonthsafterthegrantisannounced.(Actual disbursementofthegrantmoniesisdoneasareimbursementaftertheworkiscompleted.) Applicantsareencouragedtoconsult{Ith͸ƭonlinecontractordirectory(availableonlineat http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/HCD/pages/publications.aspx)beforeselectingacontractor.The Cityapprovestheselectedcontractorbeforecommencementofthework,andgrantrecipients mustsignamaintenanceagreementwiththeCity. Workeligibletoreceiveagrantmustbetothebuildingexteriorandmustinvolve reconstruction,repairorrestoration.InthefirstfouryearsoftheƦƩƚŭƩğƒ͸ƭoperation,window rehabilitationhasbeenthemostcommontypeofworktoreceiveawards,butporch restoration,painting,sidingrehabilitationandroofrecladdingprojectshavealsoreceivedfunds. Inconjunctionwithadministeringsuchagrantprogram,theCityofAshlandcouldlayemphasison gettingkeyinformationresourcesintothehandsofhomeownersseekingtoundertakeworkontheir historicbuildings.SeveralpublicationsoftheTechnicalPreservationServicesdepartmentoftheNational ParkServiceareofparticularrelevance,including: tƩĻƭĻƩǝğƷźƚƓ.ƩźĻŅƭ http://www.nps.gov/tps/howtopreserve/briefs.htm PreservationBriefsprovideguidanceonpreserving,rehabilitating,andrestoringhistoricbuildingsand areintendedtohelphistoricbuildingownersrecognizeandresolvecommonproblemspriortowork. PreservationBrief3:ImprovingEnergyEfficiencyinHistoricBuildings http://www.nps.gov/tps/howtopreserve/briefs/3improveenergyefficiency.htm 8 DiscussionofPositiveandNegativeImpactsArchitecturalResourcesGroup HistoricExteriorAlterationStandardsSeptember10,2015 PreservationBrief4:RoofingforHistoricBuildings http://www.nps.gov/tps/howtopreserve/briefs/4roofing.htm PreservationBrief8:AluminumandVinylSidingonHistoricBuildings http://www.nps.gov/tps/howtopreserve/briefs/8aluminumvinylsiding.htm PreservationBrief9:TheRepairofHistoricWoodenWindows http://www.nps.gov/tps/howtopreserve/briefs/9woodenwindows.htm PreservationBrief10:ExteriorPaintProblemsonHistoricWoodwork http://www.nps.gov/tps/howtopreserve/briefs/10paintproblems.htm PreservationBrief45:PreservingHistoricWoodPorches http://www.nps.gov/tps/howtopreserve/briefs/45woodenporches.htm tƩĻƭĻƩǝğƷźƚƓĻĭŷbƚƷĻƭ http://www.nps.gov/tps/howtopreserve/technotes.htm PreservationTechNotesprovidepracticalinformationontraditionalpracticesandinnovative techniquesforsuccessfullymaintainingandpreservingculturalresources.Ofparticularinterestarethe TechNotesregardingexteriorwoodworkandwindows,including: ProperPaintingandSurfacePreparation http://www.nps.gov/tps/howtopreserve/technotes/TechNotesExterior01.pdf PaintRemovalfromWoodSiding http://www.nps.gov/tps/howtopreserve/technotes/TechNotesExterior02.pdf PlanningApproachestoWindowPreservation http://www.nps.gov/tps/howtopreserve/technotes/TechNotesWindows01.pdf ExteriorStormWindows:CasementDesignWoodenStormSash http://www.nps.gov/tps/howtopreserve/technotes/TechNotesWindows03.pdf ReplacementWoodenFramesandSash http://www.nps.gov/tps/howtopreserve/technotes/TechNotesWindows04.pdf InteriorMetalStormWindows http://www.nps.gov/tps/howtopreserve/technotes/TechNotesWindows05.pdf ReplacementWoodenSashandFramesWithInsulatingGlassandIntegralMuntins http://www.nps.gov/tps/howtopreserve/technotes/TechNotesWindows06.pdf ThermalRetrofitofHistoricWoodenSashUsingInteriorPiggybackStormPanels http://www.nps.gov/tps/howtopreserve/technotes/TechNotesWindows08.pdf InteriorStormWindows:MagneticSeal http://www.nps.gov/tps/howtopreserve/technotes/TechNotesWindows09.pdf 9 DiscussionofPositiveandNegativeImpactsArchitecturalResourcesGroup HistoricExteriorAlterationStandardsSeptember10,2015 InstallingInsulatingGlassinExistingWoodenSashIncorporatingtheHistoricGlass http://www.nps.gov/tps/howtopreserve/technotes/TechNotesWindows11.pdf ReinforcingDeterioratedWoodenWindows http://www.nps.gov/tps/howtopreserve/technotes/TechNotesWindows14.pdf ReplacementWoodSashUtilizingTrueDividedLightsandanInteriorPiggybackEnergyPanel http://www.nps.gov/tps/howtopreserve/technotes/TechNotesWindows21.pdf 2)LocalIncentive:CodeLeniency TheCityofAshlandcouldconsiderwaysofofferingexceptionstonormalmunicipalcoderequirements toprojectsthatinvolvehistoricbuildings.Aprojectthatentailsbotharearadditionandinkindwindow replacement,forexample,couldbedeemedexemptfromtypicalsetbackrequirements,orsubjectto lessersetbackrequirements.Othertypesofcodeleniencythataresometimesusedincludesubjecting historicpropertiestolessstringentrequirementsregardingparking,useorlandscapeimprovements. 3)StateIncentive:SpecialAssessmentofHistoricPropertyTaxBenefitProgram LargerrehabilitationprojectsmaybenefitfromhƩĻŭƚƓ͸ƭSpecialAssessmentofHistoricProperty Program(http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/HCD/SHPO/pages/tax_assessment.aspx),whichfreezesa ƦƩƚƦĻƩƷǤ͸ƭ(prerehabilitation)assessedvaluefor10years.Programrequirementsinclude: ThepropertymustbelistedintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces,eitherindividuallyorasa contributingpropertyinahistoricdistrict,orbeconsideredhistoricbytheStateHistoric PreservationOfficerandlistedwithintwoyearsofbeingcertifiedforthebenefitprogram. Apreservationplanmustbepreparedthatoutlinessubstantialrehabilitationworkthebuilding willundergoduringthe10yearperiod,withemphasisontheexteriorrehabilitationofthe structure. Thereisanapplicationfeeequalto1/10of1%(0.001)oftheassessedvalue. 10%ofthetotalrealmarketvalue(RMV)ofthepropertymustbeinvestedinrehabilitation withinthefirstfiveyearsoftheprogram.Formostproperties,thisincludestheRMVofboththe building(improvements)andtheland. StateHistoricPreservationOffice(SHPO)approvalorlocalgovernmentapproval,whicheveris appropriate,isneededforexteriorprojects,andinteriorprojectsofsubstance. AnapprovedplaqueprovidedbytheOregonSHPOmustbeinstalledonthebuilding. Giventheamountofworkrequiredtosatisfyprogramrequirements,includingmostnotablycompletion ofanadequatepreservationplan,theTaxBenefitprogramismorerelevanttolargerrehabilitation projects,forwhichtaxsavingswillsubstantiallyexceedtheapplicationandproceduralcostsof participation. 10 DiscussionofPositiveandNegativeImpactsArchitecturalResourcesGroup HistoricExteriorAlterationStandardsSeptember10,2015 SHPOdoesregulartrainingstofamiliarizepotentialapplicantswiththeapplicationrequirementsand procedures.TheCityofAshlandcouldinviteSHPOtodeliversuchatrainingtointerestedhomeowners intheAshlandarea. 4)StateIncentive:PreservingOregonGrant TheStateHistoricPreservationOffice(SHPO)offersmatchinggrantsforrehabilitationworkthat supportsthepreservationofhistoricresourceslistedintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesorfor significantworkcontributingtowardidentifying,preservingand/orinterpretingarchaeologicalsites. Currently,$250,000perbienniumisavailable,andgrantfundsmaybeawardedforamountsupto $20,000. 5)StateIncentiveDiamondsintheRoughGrant DiamondsintheRoughgrantsareintendedtosupporttherestorationorreconstructionofthefaçades ofbuildingsthathavebeenheavilyalteredovertheyears,inordertoreturnthemtotheirhistoric appearanceandpotentiallyqualifythemforhistoricregisterdesignation(localornational).Thesegrants arepartoftheSHPO'sPreservingOregonGrantProgramforthe201315biennium.Grantsmaybe awardedupto$20,000. 11 ProposedCodeRevisions HistoricExteriorAlterationStandards Ashland,Oregon DRAFT,September10,2015 TableofContents A.Applicability...........................................................................................................................................1 B.ExemptionsfromHistoricPreservationPermitRequirements...............................................................2 C.ActionsSubjecttoStaffReview..............................................................................................................2 D.ActionsSubjecttoStaffReviewandHistoricReviewBoardConsultation..............................................4 ArchitecturalResourcesGroup(ARG)proposesthatCityreviewofexterioralterationsofresidential historicresourcesthatdonotrequireabuildingpermitbeaccomplishedthroughcreationofanew historicpreservationpermitprocess,asdescribedbelow.Ultimately,thispermitshouldbeincorporated intotheSiteDesignReviewchapter(18.5.2)oftheCityof!ƭŷƌğƓķ͸ƭLandUseOrdinance. A.APPLICABILITY AHistoricPreservationPermitisrequired,evenifnoBuildingPermitisrequired,forcertainalterations toahistoricresourcewhenallofthefollowingconditionsaremet: 1. Thepropertyisasinglefamilyormultifamilyresidentialdwelling,notincludingaccessorystructures oruses. 2. Thepropertyisahistoricresource,bywhichismeantthatitsatisfiesatleastoneofthefollowing conditions: a. ThepropertyislistedontheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesasanindividualresource. ontheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesascontributortoahistoric b. Thepropertyislisted district. c. Thepropertyisadesignatedcontributortoalocalhistoricdistrict. 3. Theproposedalterationsarenotidentifiedbelowasbeingexempt. noncontributortothat Alterationstoapropertywithinahistoricdistrictthathasbeenidentifiedasa districtdonotrequireahistoricpreservationpermit. ProposedCodeRevisionsArchitecturalResourcesGroup HistoricExteriorAlterationStandardsDraft,September10,2015 B.EXEMPTIONSFROMHISTORICPRESERVATIONPERMITREQUIREMENTS ThefollowingchangestoahistoricresourceshallbeexemptfromtherequirementforaHistoric PreservationPermit: 1. Anymodification,includingabuildingaddition,thatisnotvisiblefromthepublicrightofway. Commented \[MD1\]: HC:Ingeneral,shouldpurviewbe limitedtoareasvisiblefromthepublicrightofway?This questioncomesupthroughoutthisdocument. 2. ModificationofNonhistoricFeatures:RemovalorreplacementoffeaturesΑincludingwindows, doorsandsidingΑthatarenotoriginaltothebuildingandwereaddedwellaftertheĬǒźƌķźƓŭ͸ƭ construction(e.g.,asbestossidingorvinylwindows),providedthatsuchremovalorreplacement doesnotadverselyaffectanyhistoricallysignificantfeatures. Commented \[MD2\]: HC/Staff:Confirmthisissufficiently straightforwardandnotdiscretionary. 3. InteriorAlterations:Modificationstotheinteriorofahistoricresourcethatdonotalterthebuilding exterior. 4. RoutineMaintenance:Routinemaintenanceofanyexteriorfeatureofahistoricresourcethatdoes notinvolveachangeinthedesign,style,dimensions,ormaterialoftheresource. 5. Landscaping:Installation,repairorreplacementoflandscapingΑincludingtreeplantingΑthatdoes notdamageanysignificantexternalarchitecturalfeaturesofthehistoricresource. 6. Painting:Exteriorpaintingorrepaintingofanyportionofahistoricresource,includingchangesto paintcolor.Exemptiondoesnotapplytopaintingoverhistoricarchitecturalfeaturessuchas metalwork,brickwork,stonework,ormasonrythatwaspreviouslyunpainted. 7. Installationofaremovableheatingorcoolingdevice:Installationofaremovableheatingorcooling device,suchasanairconditioningunit,inanexistingbuildingopening,providedthatnoneofthe externalhistoricfeaturesoftheresourcearealtered. 8. Installationofsatellitedishesorrooftopantennae. 9. Installationofsolarcollectiondevices. 10. Installationofmechanicalequipment. 11. Installationofaremovablescreenorstormdoor,provideditdoesnotfunctionasareplacementfor mannerthatdoesnotdamageorpermanentlyalterexternal theprimarydoorandisinstalledina historicfeaturesofthehistoricresource. 12. Installationofremovablestormwindows,providedtheydonotfunctionasareplacementforthe primarywindowsandareinstalledinamannerthatdonotdamageorpermanentlyalterexternal historicfeaturesofthehistoricresource. 13. Installationofskylights. Commented \[MD3\]: HC:Ifinstallationofinappropriate skylightsisaproblem,thiscouldbemovedtoSectionD below,withthestipulationthatskylightsneedtobeeither 14. Installation,extensionorremovaloffencing. notvisiblefromthepublicrightofwayor,ifvisible,needto beflatandnotaltertheexistingprofileoftheroof. 15. FreestandingStructures:Installationoffreestandingstructuressuchastrellises,gazebosandsheds thatdonotdamageanysignificantexteriorarchitecturalfeaturesofthehistoricresource. 2 ProposedCodeRevisionsArchitecturalResourcesGroup HistoricExteriorAlterationStandardsDraft,September10,2015 C.ACTIONSSUBJECTTOSTAFFREVIEW(MinisterialPermit) Incaseswheretheyarevisiblefromthepublicrightofway,thefollowingchangestoahistoricresource shallrequireaHistoricPreservationPermit,issuedonthebasisofPlanningstaffreview: 1. Onfacadesvisiblefromthepublicrightofway,inkindrepairorreplacementofanyofthefollowing Commented \[MD4\]: HC:Shouldpurviewbelimitedto areasvisiblefrompublicrightofway? features,providedthosefeaturescontributetotheƦƩƚƦĻƩƷǤ͸ƭhistoricsignificance: a. Windows,includingtrim,sills,surroundsandotherdistinctivearchitecturalfeatures(suchas historicawnings); b. Doors,includingsurroundsandotherdistinctivearchitecturalfeatures; c. Siding; d. Porches; Commented \[MD5\]: HC:Isinappropriateporch modificationorreplacementsufficientlycommonto e. Guttersanddownspouts. warrantincludingitinthisreview? f. Otherarchitecturalelements(e.g.,decorativekneebracketsorcorbels) Commented \[MD6\]: HC:ShouldtheCityreviewgutters anddownspouts,orarehistoricexamplesofsamesorareas PurposeofCityreview:confirmproposedactionmeetsdefinitionofͻźƓƉźƓķͼrepairorreplacement. tomakethisnotworthmentioning? 2. Inkindrepairorreplacementofroofcladding. PurposeofCityreview:confirmproposedactionmeetsdefinitionofͻźƓƉźƓķͼrepairorreplacement. 3. Reconstructionofmissingfeatures PurposeofCityreview:confirmproposedactionsatisfiesstandardsidentifiedbelowformissing features. tƩƚĭĻƭƭğƓķ{ƷğƓķğƩķƭ ThisclassofactionswouldgothroughanͻƚǝĻƩtheĭƚǒƓƷĻƩͼprocesswithoutneedforsupplemental HistoricReviewBoard(HRB)review.Inthesecases,theapplicantwouldneedtosubmitmaterials exhibitingalevelofdesigndetailthatissufficienttoconfirmtheproposedactionfallsintooneofthe categoriesidentifiedaboveand,moreover,satisfiesanyregulationsidentifiedforthatcategory. TheproposedactionneedstosatisfythedefinitionofInkindRepairorReplacement(SectionC2a)as wellasanyrelevantfeaturespecificstandardsinSectionC2b. 4. GeneralStandard:InkindRepairorReplacement InkindRepairorReplacementisdefinedasrepairorreplacementofexistingmaterialsorfeaturesin amannerthatmatchestheexistingindesign,texture,materials,dimensions,shape,andscale.This includesreplacementofroofing,doors,windows,siding,andotherarchitecturalelements(e.g., decorativekneebracketsorcorbels),providedthereplacementsmatchtheoldinthemanners describedherein. 5. FeaturespecificStandards a. Siding.Replacementofsidingshallsatisfythefollowingstandards: 3 ProposedCodeRevisionsArchitecturalResourcesGroup HistoricExteriorAlterationStandardsDraft,September10,2015 i. Materials.Thereplacementsidingisthesametypeandqualityastheoriginalsidingor duplicates,tothegreatestdegreepossible,theappearanceandstructuralqualitiesof thematerialbeingreplaced. ii. Design.Thereplacementreproducestheappearanceoftheoriginalsiding. satisfythefollowingstandards: b. Windows.Replacementofwindowsshall i. Materials.Allfeaturesofthewindow,includingthewindowframe,sash,stiles,rails, muntins,ƌğƒĬ͸ƭtonguesandglass,arereplacedwithmaterialsthatduplicate,tothe greatestdegreepossible,theappearanceandstructuralqualitiesoftheoriginal. ofallpartsofthewindowshallreproduce ii. Design.Overalldesignofthewindowprofile theappearanceoftheoriginalwindow,includingthenumber,orientationand configurationofanydividedlights. c. Doors.Replacementofdoorsshallsatisfythefollowingstandards: the i. Materials.Allfeaturesofthedoorshallbereplacedwithmaterialthatduplicate,to greatestdegreepossible,theappearanceandstructuralqualitiesoftheoriginaldoor. ii. Design.Theoveralldesignofthedoorshallreproduce,tothegreatestdegreepossible, theappearanceoftheoriginaldoor. d. Roofs.Replacementofroofsshallsatisfythefollowingstandards: i. Materials (a) Historicspecialtyroofingmaterialsshouldbemaintainedinplacewhenever possible. (b) Newroofmaterialsshouldmatchtheoriginalmaterialsinscaleandtextureas closelyaspossible.Useofplasticorconcretesimulatedmaterialsisnotallowed. (c) Compositionroofingisallowedasasubstituteforwoodshinglesinacomplete replacement. (d) Imitationslateandwoodareallowedasasubstitutefororiginalmaterialsina completereplacement. ii. Design (a) Theoriginalroofformanddetailingshallbepreserved. (b) Originaleaveoverhangsshallbemaintained. (c) Cuttingbackroofraftersandsoffits,boxinginexposedraftertails,addingfascia boardswherenoneexisted,orotherwisealteringthehistoricalroofoverhangisnot allowed. e. MissingFeatures.Featuresthatwerepresentonahistoriccontributingbuildingduringthe periodofsignificancebutwhichwerelaterremovedmaybereconstructedsubjecttothe followingstandards: 4 ProposedCodeRevisionsArchitecturalResourcesGroup HistoricExteriorAlterationStandardsDraft,September10,2015 i. Materials.Materialsusedinthereplacementshallmatchascloselyaspracticablethe composition,design,texture,andothervisualqualitiesofthematerialsofthemissing feature. ii. Design.Thedesignaccuratelyduplicatesthemissingfeature.Thedesignshallbe substantiatedbyhistoric,physical,orpictorialevidence.Evidencedoesnotinclude conjecturaldesigns,ortheappearanceoffeaturesordifferentelementsfromother buildingsorstructuresbuiltduringtheperiodofsignificance. f. Porches.Replacementofporchesshallsatisfythefollowingstandards: i. Materials.Allfeaturesoftheporchshallbereplacedwithmaterialthatduplicate,tothe greatestdegreepossible,theappearanceandstructuralqualitiesoftheoriginalporch. ii. Design.Theoveralldesignoftheporchshallreproduce,tothegreatestdegreepossible, theappearanceoftheoriginalporch. Commented \[MD7\]: HC:Isinappropriateporch modificationorreplacementsufficientlycommonto warrantincludingitinthisreview? Commented \[8\]: Needtoaddguttersanddownspouts hereifretained. D.ACTIONSSUBJECTTOSTAFFREVIEWANDHISTORICREVIEWBOARDCONSULTATION(TypeI Review) Incaseswheretheyarevisiblefromthepublicrightofway,thefollowingchangestoahistoricresource shallrequireaHistoricPreservationPermit,issuedonthebasisofPlanningstaffreviewandconsultation withaselectionofmembersoftheHistoricCommissionconvenedastheHistoricReviewBoard: 1. Window/roof/sidingreplacementincaseswhere(1)theexistingwindow,rooforsidingtobe replacedisoriginaltothebuildingorotherwisecontributestoitshistoricsignificanceand(2)the proposedreplacementdoesnotmeetthedefinitionofͻLƓkindRepairorwĻƦƌğĭĻƒĻƓƷͼabove. 2. Additionofanew,freestandingstructurethatentailsdamagetosignificantexteriorarchitectural featuresofthehistoricresource.(Forexample,anewarborinthefrontyardthatobscuresthe historicfeaturesofthefaçade.) 3. Installationofaccessramp. 4. Modificationoffrontexteriorsteps,includingchangesinstepofstairwaydesignandhandrailor guardrailinstallation. 5. Installationofwindowawningswherenoneexistedpreviously. Commented \[MD9\]: HC:Item#1isthemainthingweare worriedabouthere.Areanyoftheitems27currently enoughofaproblemtobeincludedhereaswell? tƩƚĭĻƭƭğƓķwĻǝźĻǞ{ƷğƓķğƩķƭ Ultimately,thegoalistokeepthislistasfocusedas Thepermitapplicationprocessforactionsinthiscategoryshallhavetwoparts: possible. ForaHistoricPreservationPermitrequiringTypeIreview,therequiredpreapplicationmeeting (18.5.1.030.A)willbewithPlanningstaffandtheHistoricReviewBoard(threerotatingmembersof theHistoricCommission)todiscussproposedchangesbasedonconceptualdesign;and 5 ProposedCodeRevisionsArchitecturalResourcesGroup HistoricExteriorAlterationStandardsDraft,September10,2015 AfollowupreviewwithPlanningstaffandtheHistoricReviewBoardofdetailedplansmeetingthe submittalrequirementsfortheͻwĻƭźķĻƓƷźğƌAddition/RemodelOvertheCountertĻƩƒźƷƭ͵ͼ Thegoalofthereviewistoencourageadesignthatimpactshistoricfeaturesasminimallyaspossible. Staff/HRBreviewsshouldbedonewithreferencetothe SecretaryoftheLƓƷĻƩźƚƩ͸ƭGuidelinesforthe TreatmentofHistoricProperties,includingthe StandardsforRehabilitation andthe Standardsfor Reconstruction,aswellasthefollowingstandards.Certainmodificationsthatdonotsatisfythe standardsofSectionCabovemaybeallowedintwocases:(1)themodificationisdesignedtoincrease energyefficiency;or(2)theapplicantcandemonstratetheinadvisabilityofstrictlyapplyingtheSection Cstandards. Commented \[MD10\]: Thislanguagewillneedtobe modifiedifanyofD2D5aboveareretainedinthecode. 6. ModificationsDesignedtoIncreaseEnergyEfficiency Commented \[MD11\]: HC:Istheremoreweshouldaddto thissection? a. Siding. i. Improvementstoimproveenergyefficiencyareallowed,providedtheexteriorappearance ofthehistoricresourceispreservedtothegreatestextentpossible. b. Windows. i. Theuseofweatherstripping,insulation,ormaterialstoeitherrepairorimprovetheenergy efficiencyofshallbeevaluatedasmeanstoachievethedesiredenergyefficiencyobjectives priortoseekingauthorizationtoreplaceawindow. ii. Ifanownerwishestoimprovetheenergyefficiencyofwindowslocatedonafaçadeother thantheprimaryfaçade,measuresthatareremovableanddonotpermanentlyalterthe resource,including,butnotlimitedto,exteriorstormwindowsandweatherstripping,shall beused.Reuseoftheoriginalwindowframeandsashwithreplacementbyglassthat maintainstheoveralldesignandappearanceofthewindowisallowed.Example: Replacementofsinglepaneglasswithnewenergyefficientdoublepanedglassis permissible,solongasthewindowisinsatisfactorycondition,muntinsarewideenoughto holdthedoublepanedglass,thedoublepanedglasscanbeinsertedintotheoriginal windowsash,thereareonlyminoralterationstotheoveralldesignofthewindow,andthe doublepanedglassisnotvisiblytintedorreflective. 7. DemonstratedHardship(Difficulty)orPreferredApproach TheapprovalauthoritymayapproveexceptionstotheSiteDevelopmentandDesignStandards identifiedaboveinSectionCifthecircumstancesineithersubsectionaorb,below,arefoundtoexist. a. ThereisademonstrabledifficultymeetingthespecificrequirementsoftheSectionCStandards duetoauniqueorunusualaspectofanexistingstructureortheproposeduseofasite;and approvaloftheexceptionisconsistentwiththestatedpurposeoftheseHistoricExterior AlterationStandards;andtheexceptionrequestedistheminimumwhichwouldalleviatethe difficulty;or 6 ProposedCodeRevisionsArchitecturalResourcesGroup HistoricExteriorAlterationStandardsDraft,September10,2015 b. Thereisnodemonstrabledifficultyinmeetingthespecificrequirements,butgrantingthe exceptionwillresultinadesignthatequallyorbetterachievesthestatedpurposeofthe Commented \[12\]: Thiswillrequirethatweaddatthe beginningofthisdocumentasuccinctlywrittenpurpose HistoricExteriorAlterationStandards. sectionthatclearlyarticulatesobjectives. 7 125 N. Second St. Railroad District Figure 1: 1999 National Register Nomination, 125 N. Second St. Figure 2: 2015, 125 N. Second St. 1 125 Sherman Siskiyou Hargadine District Figure 3: 2000 National Register Nomination, 125 Sherman 2 Figure 4: Date Unknown, 125 Sherman Figure 5: 2009, 125 Sherman Figure 6: 2009, Garage, 125 Sherman 3 Figure 7: 2015, 125 Sherman 4 505 Scenic Skidmore Academy District Figure 8: 2001 National Register Nomination, 505 Scenic Figure 9: 1983, 505 Scenic 5 Figure 10: 2004, 505 Scenic Figure 11: 2015, 505 Scenic 6 Figure 12: 2015, 505 Scenic 7