HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/23/2004 - Regular Agenda Packet - Design Review Board Agenda
• College Station Design Review Board
Friday, April 23, 2004
Administrative Conference Room
College Station City Secretary's Office
Embracing the Past,Exploring the Future 1101 Texas Avenue
11:00 a.m.
1. Call to order.
2. Consider absence requests.
3. Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes
from March 12, 2004
4. Discussion, consideration and possible action on a concept plan for
Castlegate Section 6 located on the North side of Greens Prairie Road,just
west of Castlegate Drive. (04-49 JR).
• 5. Discussion, consideration and possible action on the rehabilitation of front
fagade changes to Antonio's Pizza by the Slice located at 108 College Main
located in Northgate. (04-21 HM).
6. Discussion and action to appoint a Board Member to serve as Acting
Chairman for the meetings of May 14, May 28, & June 11.
7. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items —A Design Review
Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been
given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of
existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a
proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
8. Adjourn.
The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are
• available. Any request for sign interpretive services must be made 48 hours
before the meeting. To make arrangements call
(979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989.
i
Minutes
•
Design Review Board
March 12, 2004
11:00 AM
Board Members Present: Scott Shafer, Alan King, Richard Benning &
Stanton Ware.
Board Members Absent: Dr. Phil Tabb, Bill Trainor& George McLean.
Staff Present: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace, Planning Intern Lauren
Harrell, Staff Planner Jennifer Prochazka, Development
Review Manager Natalie Ruiz and Transportation Planner
Ken Fogle.
Others Present: Mike McClure.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 Call to order.
Mr. Shafer called the meeting to order.
•
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider absence requests.
Dr. Tabb
Bill Trainor
George McLean
Mr. King made the motion to approve the absence requests. Mr. Ware seconded the
motion, which passed unopposed(4-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO.3: Consideration, discussion and possible action to
approve meeting minutes from February 13,2004
Mr. King made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Ware seconded the motion,
which passed unopposed(4-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Discussion, consideration and possible to approve
meeting minutes from February 27,2004.
Mr. Ware made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. King seconded the motion,
which passed unopposed(4-0).
•
• AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Discussion, consideration and possible action to on a
concept plan for Allsize Storage, a mini storage complex, zoned PDD, at 3101 Texas
Avenue South. (04-46).
Staff Planner Jennifer Prochazka presented the staff report and stated that the proposal is
for the development of a self-storage complex with an accessory office and living unit for
on-site management. This is only a review of the items required by the "Conceptual PDD
Site Plan Minimum Requirements". Approval of this Concept Plan does not imply site
plan approval or approval of specific site elements shown on the plan.
The purpose of the PDD at this location is to restore an agreement between the owners of
the subject property and the adjacent Mile Drive neighborhood, and limiting uses next to
an established neighborhood that may experience cut-through traffic as a result of
development of this property.
In 1987 a greenbelt and access easement were platted on this property as a requirement of
the 1987 rezoning that came out of an agreement between the subject property owners
and the Mile Drive residents. The greenbelt reserve and adjacent access easement serve
as a 70-foot buffer from the residential property for future structures, including parking,
on this site. The PDD zoning was approved with the understanding that this buffer would
be retained.
• Staff recommends approval of the concept plan with the condition that the parking shown
in the access easement is relocated to an approved area on site. Also, the gate will have
to be positioned to allow for others to access the access easement without going through
the gates. This access easement was platted as the sole access to the property located to
the east of the subject property; this easement must remain clear for access to the adjacent
property.
Staff has concerns with the location of the currently platted access easement. The current
location of the access easement does not meet the City's throat depth requirements and
may pose a safety concern. An alternate access point should be considered with this
concept plan.
Mr. Benning made the motion to accept with staff recommendations and reduce the
parking spaces by how the building is classified Mr. King seconded the motion, which
passed unopposed(4-0). .
•
• AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Discussion, consideration and possible action on
proposed signs for A Ka Sa Ka Sake Bar, zoned NG-1 and located at 113 College
Main on the 2"d story. (04-43).
Staff Planner Prochazka resented the staff report and stated that the applicant is proposing
three new signs. The proposed signage will be attached for the A Ka Sa Ka Sake Bar
located on the second story of the structure at the southwest corner of College Main and
Patricia Street. The applicant is proposing 3-2'x10' aluminum signs located on the west
side (facing the Promenade), the north side (facing Patricia Street), the east side of the
building(facing College Main).
Kyoto Sushi, located on the bottom level of this building, has signage approved in 2002.
Ms. Prochazka told the Board that the signs have already been put up and the applicant
was not in attendance at the meeting should they have any questions.
The Board discussed the signs. Without the applicant being present to answer questions
it was decided to decline the application.
Mr. King made the motion to decline the application and request that the applicant
return with an alternative design with a possibility of the sign being vertical on the end
of the building. Mr. Benning seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(4-0).
• AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Discussion and consideration of future agenda items.
Update on sign regulations.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn.
Mr. Benning made the motion to adjourn. Mr. King seconded the motion, which
passed unopposed(4-0).
APPROVED:
Scott Shafer
ATTEST:
Deborah Grace,Staff Assistant
•
• DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
PDD OR P-MUD CONCEPT PLAN
STAFF REPORT
Project Manager: Jennifer Reeves Date: 03-02-04
E-mail: jreeves@cstx.gov
For
CASTLEGATE SEC 6(CON) (04-00500049)
A Concept Plan shall be required prior to any development of property zoned Planned
Development District(PDD).
Zoning District: PDD Planned Development District
Approved Land Uses: Single family, public and private parks, and open space
Location: 10.80 acres North side of Greens Prairie Road,just west of Castlegate Drive.
Applicant: Greens Prairie Investors, Ltd.
Item Summary: The developer wishes to continue the development as it was originally
• envisioned and implemented in the previous Sections 1-5 of the Castlegate Subdivision.
The Planned Development District is the only available district that provides for the
meritorious modifications of the regulations.
Allowable building heights are listed from 15 to 35 feet. Requested building setbacks are
requested as follows (UDO standards follow in parenthesis):
Front: 20' minimum, (25')
Side: 7.5' (7.5')
Side Street: 15' (15')
Rear: 20'for lots > 100' in depth (20')
15'for lots < 100' in depth (20')
Minimum lot dimensions for lots that are located adjacent to the floodplain or greenway
areas are proposed as follows:
Minimum Lot Area: 8000 SF (5000 SF)
Minimum Lot Width: 50'at front or rear setback line (50')
35' at street right-of-way
Minimum Lot Depth: 101' (100')
•
• Street pavement width for residential streets are proposed as follows:
24' width for cul-de-sac streets (27')
27'width for other residential streets (27')
Parks and Recreation Board Recommendations: The Parks Board has previously
approved the Castlegate Master Plan for parkland dedication.
Greenways Program Manager Recommendations: The developer has also worked
with the Greenways Program Manager to finalize plans for dedicating a 5.3-acre
greenway area in another portion of Castlegate.
Administrator Recommendations: The administrator recommends approval of the
plan as submitted.
Review Criteria:
1. The proposal will constitute an environment of sustained stability and will be in
harmony with the character of the surrounding area;
2. The proposal is in conformity with the policies, goals, and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan, and any subsequently adopted Plans, and will be consistent
with the intent and purpose of this Section;
3. The proposal is compatible with existing or permitted uses on abutting sites and will
not adversely affect adjacent development;
• 4. Every dwelling unit need not front on a public street but shall have access to a public
street directly or via a court, walkway, public area, or area owned by a homeowners
association;
5. The development includes provision of adequate public improvements, including, but
not limited to, parks, schools, and other public facilities;
6. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
7. The development will not adversely affect the safety and convenience of vehicular,
bicycle, or pedestrian circulation in the vicinity, including traffic reasonably expected
to be generated by the proposed use and other uses reasonably anticipated in the
area considering existing zoning and land uses in the area.
Minimum Requirements: Unless otherwise indicated in the approved Concept Plan, the
minimum requirements for this development shall be those stated in the Unified
Development Ordinance for R-1 Single Family Residential
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Concept Plan
3. Planning and Zoning minutes from the March 18, 2004 meeting
•
j� FOR OFFIC $4 E U@SLY
V'" CASE NO. 0 t,� �-{ 1
DATE SUBMITTED P';-,Z3 -0
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW FOR PDD / P-MUD
o"PDD-H (Housing) o PDD-I (Industrial) o PDD-B (Business) o P-MUD
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Application completed in full.
$200.00 application fee.
✓ Ten (10) copies of the Concept Plan in accordance with Section 3.4.D of the UDO.
Written legal description of subject property (metes & bounds or lot & block of subdivision, whichever is
applicable).
L/ Concept Plan Information sheet completed in full.
-a Proof that the Greenways Manager has reviewed and approved your conceptual plan.
_ Proof that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board as reviewed nd approved your conceptual plan.
pakk,wa A ak,�", r"aWIP4 has hPjn "Ile
Date of Required Preapplication Conference:
APPLICANT'S INFORMATION:
Name(s) 6r? Ag6 Bz rid
Street Address 4490 C"144auaJti _D l41/t?� City 74160
• State Zip Code _7 y-� E-Mail Address
Phone Number q - Z�'D Fax Number- (q�40 -10*I
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION:
Name(s) _Car s �, ✓, T .
Street Address ! ri VQ, City
State j— Zip Code _ *S— E-Mail Address '--
Phone Number P 7q)610- 1 ZSO Fax Number (DI 00- 1041
This property was conveyed to owner by deed, dated-ZDOQ—and recorded in Volume 34'05
Page 55 of the Brazos County Deed Records.
General Location of Property: dw-an p�—'6zP,hsf�I?ziae, RAul, LUes l F c-W 4D
Address of Property: VAD P
Legal Description: Ro6456P_I/easom Surj&" A-.54-
Total Acreage: R, M42 06r_661
Existing Zoning: A-Q Requested Zoning:
Present Use of Property: airi c0�Qil
Proposed Use of Property:
•
6/13/03 Page 1 of 4
r
CONCEPT PLAN INFORMATION
Orpose and intent of proposed development, as approved by the City Council as part of the PDD zoning:
List and explanation of the land uses approved by the City Council as part of the PDD zoning: 6tzm- i
What is the range of future building heights: 1'5'- N nn
Please provide a general statement regarding the proposed drainage: ff S 9x& 5W2�&lY! w@ ke,
rlccKo�n a 1 r�`lou, a�-/ �f`
A .4w*1
ling,1.2 1 1p,a—1 rV
-th, f �Coll ,
List thggeneral t5ulk or dimensional�ianations sought: .5_��ajoE yrs wi'd-Aa Pr�r�
r r ra!S rdew
lime�i`Sfa aces i m um b f' Mimmsievls.
i
If variations are sought, please provide a list of community benefits and /or innovative design concepts to
justify the request: See -K�.c LL4kclud MVLnriWk",011-1;, /P.ri' naz MadScakeo-S
--h 61, skyotaAAC
(Please note that a "complete site plan" must be submitted to Development Services for a formal
review after the "conceptual" plan has been approved by the Design Review Board prior to the
issuance of a building permit-except for single-family development)
The applicant has prepared this application and supporting information and certifies that the facts stated
herein and exhibits attached hereto are true and correct. IF APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE
OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, APPLICATION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A
POWER OF ATTORNEY STATEMENT FROM THE OWNER.
•
Signature of owner o applicant Date
6/13/03 2 of 4
improved the drainage. He added that he was not aware of any plans for a drainage
ditch and pointed out the general fall of the whole area as it pertains to drainage.
• Orin Michael, 1011 Dominic, also expressed concerns about the drainage and
flooding. He stated that a drainage foil was needed with the additional run-off from
more impervious surfaces going in vs the minimum detention efforts.
Commissioner White interjected that having a drainage easement, providing
reserved property grated by the property owner, would allow for the redirection of
the water-flow in order to preserve the neighboring homes and properties.
Commissioner Davis clarified with Mr. Micheal that water is coming through and
running under the fence.
Mr. Deason pointed out that an extensive water drainage study was conducted and
approved by the City and drainage issues were addressed. He asked that Staff
revisit the study and its conclusion, determine if the requirements have changed
since the time of its approval before requiring the drainage easements.
Development Manager Ruiz explained the 30-day rule on plats to the Commission,
stating that action on this plat was required.
Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing.
Assistant City Attorney Nemcik explained the Commission's options by approving the
plat with or without requiring a drainage easement. She added that Staff should
review the drainage plan and determine whether or not the plan needs to be
modified in order to reflect the placement of the drainage easement. Based on
Staff's recommendation, Ms. Nemcik stated that the Commission may require a
• drainage easement and if the the developer is not going to ameliorate; an
abandonment letter can be requested. She added that the developer has an
obligation to address the flooding experienced by the adjacent property owners.
Ms. Ruiz stated that Staff will meet with the engineer of record and review the
studies and the plans for the development.
Lastly, Ms. Nemcik stated that the City can enforce the drainage ordinance
regardless of whether or not there is a drainage easement and that drainage
improvements can be achieved through the drainange regulations and by separate
instrument.
Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the plat with the condition of a 5-foot
drainage easement through Lot 7. Commissioner White seconded the motion and
asked Staff to report to the Commission the engineering finds once the reports and
plans have been reviewed with the engineer of record. The motion carried 4-1.
FOR: Shafer, Davis, White, and Reynolds.
AGAINST: Hall.
ABSENT: Williams and Trapani
9. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning for Phase 6 of
the Castlegate Subdivision from A-O Agricultural Open to PDD Planned
Development District, consisting of 10.80 acres generally located on the
north side of Greens Prairie Road,just west of Castlegate Drive. (04-48)
Staff Planner Reeves presented the Staff Report, recommending approval by Staff of
• the rezoning request as submitted. The proposed Planned Development District is
for a single family integrated residential community with amenities. This District also
P&Z Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 4 of 7
r
provides for the meritorious modifications of the regulations that allows for the
developer to continue the development as it was originally envisioned and
• implemented in the previous Sections 1-5 of the Castlegate Subdivision. These
modifications along with the concept plan will go before the Design Review Board
(DRB) on March 26, 2004. In closing, Ms. Reeves stated that the proposed
development is in compliance with the Land Use Plan.
Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing. There were no comments made.
Therefore, Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the rezoning, which was seconded by
Commissioner Reynolds. The motion carried 5-0.
FOR: Shafer, Davis, White, Hall, and Reynolds.
AGAINST: None.
ABSENT: Williams and Trapani
10. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning for Nantucket
Phase 7, consisting of 4.794 acres located south of Nantucket Drive
between State Highway 6 and Harper's Ferry Road from A-O Agricultural
Open to R-1 Single Family Residential. (04-54)
Staff Planner Prochazka presented the Staff Report, recommending approval of the
Rezoning for the development of single-family lots. Annexed in 2002, the property
was zoned as A-O at that time but is currently in the platting process. In closing,
Ms. Prochazka stated that the request complies with the Land Use Plan.
Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing.
. Paul Bolin, 1207 Winddrift Cove asked questions in regards to access. He did not
oppose the rezoning.
Joe Schultz, 3208 Innsbrook, representing the applicant, stated that they are
currently planning for 1/2-acre lots.
Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner White motioned to approve the rezoning. Commissioner Davis
seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0.
FOR: Shafer, Davis, White, Hall, and Reynolds.
AGAINST: None.
ABSENT: Williams and Trapani
11. Public hearing, discussion and possible action on an Amendment to Article
2, Development Review Bodies, and Article 5, District Purpose Statements
and Supplemental Standards, of the Unified Development Ordinance,
creating an overlay zoning district for properties fronting Krenek Tap Road
for a depth of 750'. (04-36)
City Planner Kee made the presentation. She explained that this overlay zoning
district is being created to apply to the properties that have frontage along Krenek
Tap Road with a depth of 750'. The land acquisition, for the planned municipal
complex on the south side of Krenek Tap Road, was approved in a previous bond
election and the most recent bond election made provision for the construction of
• Phase I which will be underway in the near future. Ms. Kee explained that the City
Council wishes to create an identity, not only for the municipal complex and other
P&Z Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 5 of 7
r
• DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
Project Manager: Lauren Harrell Date: April 15, 2004
E-mail: Iharrell@cstx.gov
For
ANTONIO'S PIZZA BY THE SLICE (SDSP) (04-021)
In the design districts (including the WPC, NG-1, NG-2, and NG-3 districts), all
substantial maintenance (including but not limited to rehabilitation, fagade work, and
change of exterior materials or other construction, including the replacement or alteration
of signs) shall be subject to the design district building and sign review process.
Zoning District: NG-1 Core Northgate
Location: 104 College Main
Applicant: Steven Reeves, Business Owner
Item Summary:
This property was presented to the Design Review Board on September 23, 2003 for
• signage approval. The current owner has agreed to install the approved 32-square foot
sign in the facade recess intended for signage.
At this time, the applicant is requesting to rehabilitate the front facade of the building by
repainting the door and window trim to match the signage and/or interior colors. The
applicant suggests red, green, or maroon. Additionally, the business owner would like to
remove the existing black tile on the front facade and replace it with green, recd, or
maroon tile.
Item Background:
This property is considered Medium Priority by the Northgate Historic Resources Study.
The UDO requires properties with such a designation to be treated using methods and
materials in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
The Standards state:
1. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right
will be retained and preserved.
2. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples
of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
3. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new
feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible,
materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by
documentary and physical evidence.
• The tile at the entry is considered a distinctive, character-defining feature of the building.
Depending on the age of the tile and previous finishes for the fagade, removing and
r
• replacing the tile is not in keeping with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation.
Additionally, the Northgate Design Guidelines recommend that the color scheme for a
building should consider the context of the entire block or area as well as creating a
coordinated color scheme for the building. The guidelines also suggest that bright colors
should be reserved for accents only. If replacement of the tile is approved, these
guidelines should be considered as an appropriate finish color for the entry is discussed.
Proposed material samples and fagade elevations will be available at the meeting.
Items/Issues for Review:
1. Door and window trim color
2. Removal and replacement of tile
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
3. Photographs
4. Sign graphics
•
•
r
03i08iO4 MON 09:55 FAX 979 775 5107 Kevin M. Jimmerson Z002
FOR o DICE E ONLY
CASE No
DATE SUBMTED
DESIGN DISTRICT BUILDING & SIGN REVIEW APPLICATION q' '�
Design Review Board
(Check one) X NG-1 ❑ NG-2 ❑ NG-3 ❑ WPC ❑ Ov
Staff Review Only
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
X_Application completed in full. (Rovised)
X $200.00 Special District Application fee (Previously submitted)
X Ten (10)folded copies of facade details (including signage}with dimensions. (for facades only)
Ten (10)folded copies of sign details with dimensions. (for signs only)
X Color and material samples.
If attached signage is proposed, provide ten (10) copies of a building elevation showing sign
placement.
a
datwof Preapplication Conference:
NAME OF BUSINESS Antonio's Pizza by the Slice
ADDRESS 104 College Main
GAL DESCRIPTION Boyett, Block 2, Lot 4, 5
RESENT USE OF PROPERTY Vacant-was bike shot)
PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY Restaurant
Y
APPLICANTS INFORMATION:
Name Steven Reeves—Business Ownjr
Street Address
City State Zip Code
E-Mail Address steverbantoniasoizzes.com
Phone Number 401-583-0185 Fax Number
PLANNEKS INFORMATION:
Name Jessica Jimmerson—Plannino and Land Use Solutions
Street Address 3211 Westwood Main
City Bryan State TX 7jp Code 77807
E-Mail Address U@Diusolannina.com
Phone Number 224-4340 Fax Number 775-5107
is
6/13103 Pagel a1`2
UJ/06/u4 NUN u9:55 r'A3 979 775 5107 Kevin M. Jimmerson 1 003 ,
ROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION:
Name _„_ Bruce Homak
Street Address 24303 Woolgev Canvon Rd. SPC 44
City Canoaa Paris State CA Zip Code 913041170
E-Mail Address
Phone Number Fax Number
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXTERIOR CHANGES
1. Would like to clean up front of building by repainting door&window trim green, red or maroon to match
signage and/or interior colors.
Yom` "s
would like the DRB to allow replacement of the black the with another�J4
color thee,such as,green, red or maroon, again to improve the look and condition of the front of the building "t /
to match the previously approved signage.
D ATTACHED SIGN AND/OR 0 FREESTANI?ING WN
Square Footage Square Footage
All applications(except Overlay disinct applications)must be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Once a
meeting is scheduled, the applicant will be notii ed of the date and time so that he can be present to discuss
Me proposal with the Board. The applicant has prepared this application and ce&rms that the fags stated
herein and exhibits attached hereto are true and correct,
( .--- March e. 2004
Sign of Owneent or Applicant Date
6113103 Page 2 of 2
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (1995), Natio... Page 1 of 2
Technical Preservation Services
•
for HISTORIC BUILDINGS National Park Service*
� �`• Caring for Your Historic Building
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties,1995
Standards for Rehabilitation
tib REHABILITATION IS DEFINED AS
the act or process of making possible
�ltl a compatible use for a property
I' fT3 through repair, alterations, and
additions while preserving those
portions or features which convey its
I r historical, cultural, or architectural
values.
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new
WI��nN9 use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials,
a What We 04 features, spaces, and spatial relationships.
r search 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and
E-�aAil preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of
features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a
• property will be avoided.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time,
place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical
development, such as adding conjectural features or elements
from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significancy in
their own right will be retained and preserved.
S. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction
techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a
property will be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than
replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires
replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match
the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by
documentary and physical evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be
undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that
cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place.
If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be
undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction
will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial
relationships that characterize the property. The new work will
• be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the
historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and
massing to protect the integrity of the property and its
http://www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/secstan5.htm 8/27/2003
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (1995), Natio... Page 2 of 2
environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be
undertaken in a such a manner that, if removed in the future,
the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its
environment would be unimpaired.
REHABILITATION AS A TREATMENT. When repair and replacement
of deteriorated features are necessary; when alterations or additions
to the property are planned for a new or continued use; and when its
depiction at a particular period of time is not appropriate,
Rehabilitation may be considered as a treatment.
http://www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/Sbcstan5.htrn 8/27/2003
F
s
M
Z
i
•
i
• r1 t
•
� 1
�
�
�} .
33rd
\ � ,
\� >y
-
6
�
2'-O'x I6'-O" RECES6ED 516N AREA
s I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I � Q ViY C
It 1 I I I 1 I I I I wV
I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I
I 1 I I I I I II 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I 1 I
1 I i I I � I I �/'NI`✓' I I I I I I 1 I I
I I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I
1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 � �iC:����^^- SY'��C SLtC� I I I i I I I I I I I• I I i I I I I 1
I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I f 1 I f I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I
I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 i I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I
IIIIIIII � II IIIIIIIIIIIII � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII�IIIIIIIIIIII � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � IIIIIIII 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 q
V I I I X
I I
I
.. .. . ........\.. \.,,...........,......,.... ..., ... . ... ,. .. . .. .. . ., \ .\ ., 1 1 1 I. as_
I 111 �s
„
•, �, 1 I I
I I I
1 I I
, I S
I I I
I I
/ / I I
MT EXTERIOR ELEVATION