DOCSLIB.ORG

Historic Preservation Commission

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Historic Preservation Commission HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REPORT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION PREPARED BY: Taylor Long, Associate Planner REVIEWED BY: Mercy Davison, Town Planner DATE: February 9, 2018 SUBJECT: CA-18-01-01: Window Replacement, 603 Normal Ave A. Summary: Replacement of 5 first floor windows at 603 Normal Ave B. Recommended Action: Approval as proposed by applicant C. Background: 1. Property Information: Applicant(s): Tom and Claire Lamonica Owner(s): Tom and Claire Lamonica Location: 603 Normal Ave 2. Property Description: 603 Normal Ave was designated a contributing property to the Old North Normal Historic District by the Town Council in September of 2003 (Ordinance No. 4887). This two-story, side gable Craftsman home was built in 1925 and features a modern rear addition (approved by the HPC in May of 2007) and a detached garage. 1 3. Description of Proposed Alteration: The applicant proposes to install 5 wood, double-hung insert windows externally clad in aluminum in place of 5 original windows on the home. The windows being eyed for replacement are on the north, east, and west facades and are shown circled on the photos above. These original windows are currently covered with aluminum storms, which would be removed as part of this project. The insert windows being proposed have been previously approved by the commission for placement on the home’s modern addition (CA-07-05-09), as replacements for 6 basement windows (CA-12-11-21), and as a suitable replacement for one first-floor window on the south side of the home (CA-17-03-06). The windows proposed by the homeowners and their contractor feature raised, exterior mullions and simulated divided lites. The cut out above illustrates their design. Although the windows themselves would be replaced with new inserts, the original wood frames and trim for reach of these windows will remain intact. 4. Code Requirement for Certificate of Appropriateness: A Certificate of Appropriateness is required because it involves the alteration of a structure or feature on the property that is readily visible from a public right-of-way. SEC. 15.16-5 – Certificate of Appropriateness A. Certificate of Appropriateness. A Certificate of Appropriateness shall be required before the following actions affecting the exterior architectural appearance of any landmark or property within a historic district may be undertaken: 1. Any exterior construction, alteration, or removal requiring a building permit from the Town. SEC. 15.16-5 – Standards for Review F. Standards for Review. In considering an application for a building or demolition permit or for a Certificate of Appropriateness, the Preservation Commission shall be guided by the following general standards in addition to any design guidelines in the ordinance designating the landmark or historic district: 5. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition design, color (paint or stain, on any surface that has not been previously painted or stained shall comply with Standards of Review), texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplication of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence, rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures. 2 SEC. 15.16-2 – Design Guidelines for New Construction and Staff Analysis E. Design Guidelines. Design guidelines for applying the criteria for review of Certificates of Appropriateness shall, at a minimum, consider the following architectural criteria for existing structures and new construction: 1. Height – The height of any proposed alteration or construction should be compatible with the style and character of the landmark and with contributing structures in a historic district. The proposed window inserts would be manufactured to fit the current window openings, so the height of the windows on any of the three affected facades would be unchanged. 2. Proportions of Windows and Doors – The proportions and relationships between doors and windows on facades visible from the street should be compatible with the architectural style and character of the landmark and with contributing structures within a historic district. The proposed replacement windows are of the same proportions as those currently in place and no new window locations would be cut in. 3. Relationship of Building Masses and Spaces – The relationship of a structure within a historic district to the open space between it and adjoining structures should be compatible. N/A 4. Roof Shape – The design of the roof should be compatible with the architectural style and character of the landmark and contributing structures in a historic district. N/A 5. Scale – The scale of the structure after alteration, construction, or partial demolition should be compatible with its architectural style and character and with contributing structures in historic districts. N/A 6. Directional Expression – Facades in historic districts should blend with other structures with regard to directional expression. Structures in a historic district should be compatible with the dominant horizontal or vertical expression of surrounding structures. The directional expression of a landmark after alteration, construction, or partial demolition should be compatible with its original architectural style and character. N/A 7. Garages and Driveways – Garages should be situated in a manner compatible with garages located on contributing properties within a district. If attached, the garage should be set back to the rear face of the home. N/A 3 8. Architectural Details – Architectural details including materials, colors (paint or stain color on any surface that has not been previously painted or stained shall comply with design guidelines), and textures should be treated so as to make a landmark compatible with its original architectural style and character and to preserve and enhance the architectural style or character of a landmark or historic district. Five wood windows original to the home’s construction will be removed, but their replacements are of a make and quality that the commission regularly deems appropriate for historic properties. Wood windows externally clad in aluminum have been approved as suitable replacements for originals many times in the recent past – three times since 2007 on this home alone. The replacement casements proposed in this instance will be the same size as those currently on the home and will match each of their divided lite patterns. Additionally, the original wood frames and trim surrounding each window will remain intact. 4 2/2/2018 603 Normal Ave McGIS, http://www.McGIS.org/License McG IS does not guarantee the accuracy of the information displayed. Only on-s ite 0 62.5 125 Feet verification or field surv ey s by a licensed professional land surveyor can provide such µ ac curac y. Use for display and refer nc e purpos es only. CA-18-02-01 justin g bratcher MIKE WILEMAN LS BUILDING PRODUCTS-EAST PEORIA justin g bratcher 300 PINECREST DR EAST PEORIA, IL 61611-4853 Phone: (309) 694-4356 Quote #: FUU1CFP Email: [email protected] A Proposal for Window and Door Products prepared for: Job Site: 61611 This report was generated on 1/16/2018 10:11:06 AM using the Marvin Order Management System, version 0002.18.00 (Current). Price in USD. Unit availability and price are subject to change. Dealer terms and conditions may apply. Shipping Address: LS BUILDING PRODUCTS-EAST PEORIA 300 PINECREST DR EAST PEORIA, IL 61611-4853 Featuring products from: OMS Ver. 0002.18.00 (Current) justin g bratcher Product availability and pricing subject to change. justin g bratcher Quote Number: FUU1CFP Architectural Project Number: UNIT SUMMARY The following is a schedule of the windows and doors for this project. For additional unit details, please see Line Item Quotes. Additional charges, tax or Terms and Conditions may apply. Detail pricing is per unit. NUMBER OF LINES: 3 TOTAL UNIT QTY: 15 EXT NET PRICE: USD 4,071.45 LINE MARK UNIT BRAND ITEM NET PRICE QTY EXTENDED NET PRICE 1 Marvin Clad Ultimate Insert Double Hung 782.61 2 1,565.22 IO 34" X 57 3/4" 2 Marvin Clad Ultimate Insert Double Hung 782.61 3 2,347.83 IO 36" X 57 3/4" 3 Marvin Parts: 18601099 A110 2" FRAME 15.84 10 158.40 EXPANDER-150"-STONE WHITE OMS Ver. 0002.18.00 (Current) Processed on: 1/16/2018 10:11:05 AM Page 2 of 6 OMS Ver. 0002.18.00 (Current) justin g bratcher Product availability and pricing subject to change. justin g bratcher Quote Number: FUU1CFP Architectural Project Number: LINE ITEM QUOTES The following is a schedule of the windows and doors for this project. For additional unit details, please see Line Item Quotes. Additional charges, tax or Terms and Conditions may apply. Detail pricing is per unit. Line #1 Mark Unit: Net Price: 782.61 Qty: 2 Ext. Net Price: USD 1,565.22 Stone White Clad Exterior Primed Pine Interior 21.12 Clad Ultimate Insert Double Hung 607.08 Inside Opening 34" X 57 3/4" 8 Degree Frame Bevel Top Sash Stone White Clad Sash Exterior Primed Pine Sash Interior IG Low E2 w/Argon Stainless Perimeter and Spacer Bar 7/8" SDL - With Spacer Bar - Stainless 62.69 Rectangular - Special Cut 3W1H Stone White Clad Ext - Primed Pine Int Ovolo Interior Glazing Profile Bottom Sash Stone White Clad Sash Exterior Primed Pine Sash Interior IG - 1 Lite Low E2 w/Argon Stainless Perimeter Bar FS 33 5/8" X 58 1/16" Ovolo Interior Glazing Profile IO 34" X 57 3/4" Antique Brass Sash Lock 45.53 2 /Unit Antique Brass Sash Lift 46.19 Beige Jamb Hardware Aluminum Screen Stone White Surround Charcoal Fiberglass Mesh 3 1/4" Jambs Line #2 Mark Unit: Net Price: 782.61 Qty: 3 Ext.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 11. Historic Preservation A
    Cottonwood General Plan 2025 11. HISTORIC PRESERVATION A. INTRODUCTION Historic preservation is an optimistic and inspiring field of interest intent on improving present and future quality of life awareness through the appreciation of our built and cultural heritage. Historic preservation is architectural history, community planning, historical research and surveys, oral history, archaeology, economic revitalization, and more. It relates directly to quality of life, sense of place and cultural identity. Historic preservation is about preserving, documenting, and incorporating the significant elements of the past into the present and future life of the community. The General Plan’s Historic Preservation Element examines historic preservation issues in the city and establishes goals and objectives intended to help accomplish these goals. Related goals and objectives act as guidelines for property owners, developers, and businesses, as well as City Staff, the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council when considering historic preservation issues within the city. Preservation of buildings and structures in their original condition with the original intended use can be seen as the ideal expression of historic preservation. However, uses change over time so how a building is used may need to adapt to these changing circumstances to be viable. When there is pressure for change, an analysis of alternative treatments should be considered to determine the appropriate approach to allow alterations without losing the essential historic character of the structure. Repair, reuse or relocation of structures should be considered instead of demolition. Rehabilitation, which includes alterations to a structure, may also be considered where necessary to allow a building use to meet contemporary needs and interests.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Peotone Township Will County, Illinois
    Rural Historic Structural Survey of Peotone Township Will County, Illinois Rural Historic Structural Survey of Peotone Township Will County, Illinois October 2014 for Will County Land Use Department and Will County Historic Preservation Commission Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. 330 Pfingsten Road Northbrook, Illinois 60062 (847) 272-7400 www.wje.com Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Rural Historic Structural Survey Peotone Township Will County, Illinois TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary vii Federal Assistance Acknowledgement viii Chapter 1 – Background and Methodology Background 1 Survey Methodology 1 Survey Gaps and Future Research 2 Chapter 2 – Context History of the Rural Survey Area Geologic and Topographic Background to the Illinois Region 5 First Nations in the Illinois Region 6 The Arrival of European Settlers 8 Settlement and Development of Northeast Illinois 13 Peotone Township Developmental History 21 Andres 30 Schools 32 Churches 36 Cemeteries 40 Will County Fairgrounds 41 Chapter 3 – American Rural Architecture Farmstead Planning 51 Development of Balloon Framing 51 Masonry Construction 55 Classification of Farmhouses 60 Development of the Barn 73 Barn Types 77 Chapter 4 – Survey Summary and Recommendations Period of Significance 95 Significance 96 Potential Historic Districts, Thematic Designations, and Landmarks 100 Survey Summary 102 Table 1. Surveyed Farmsteads and Related Sites in Peotone Township Table 2. Farmhouses in Peotone Township Table 3. Barns in Peotone Township
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resource Surveys
    Guidelines For Conducting Cultural Resource Surveys Table of Contents When the NRCS is conducting cultural resource surveys or archaeological field inventories this guidebook will give you a general step by step process to help in completing your field inventory. Prior to field work: Define the project area. 1 Request an ARMS records check. 2 Survey Design: Where are we surveying. 3 What are we looking for? 4 How are we going to survey the project area. 5 In the field survey: What are we going to need to take into the field. 9 Getting started. 10 Findings. 14 Site Boundaries 17 Sketch Maps 18 Writing a site description 21 Appendix A: New Mexico Standards for Survey and Inventory. 22 Appendix B: Example Laboratory of Anthropology Site Record. 39 Archaeological field survey is the methodological process by which archaeologists collect information about the location, distribution and organization of past human cultures across a large area. Why we care. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any State and the head of any Federal department of independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register.
    [Show full text]
  • An Architectural and Historical Analysis of the Caretaker's House at the Winneshiek County Poor Farm, Decorah Township, Winneshiek County, Iowa
    AN ARCHITECTURAL AND HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CARETAKER’S HOUSE AT THE WINNESHIEK COUNTY POOR FARM, DECORAH TOWNSHIP, WINNESHIEK COUNTY, IOWA Section 14, T98N, R8W Special Report 1 Prepared for Winneshiek County Historic Preservation Commission Courthouse Annex 204 West Broadway Decorah, Iowa 52101 Prepared by Branden K. Scott With contributions by Lloyd Bolz, Derek V. Lee, and David G. Stanley Bear Creek Archeology, Inc. P.O. Box 347 Cresco, Iowa 52136 David G. Stanley, Director February 2012 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY This report presents the findings of an investigation concerning the Winneshiek County Poor Farm (96-00658), and more specifically the Caretaker’s House (96-00644) within the county farm district. This investigation was prepared for the Winneshiek County Historic Preservation Commission because the Caretaker’s House, a structure potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A is to be dismantled. This investigation seeks to document the architectural aspects of the property with emphasis on the Caretaker’s House, create a historical and cultural context of the farm, determine the potential significance of the property and each of its contributing/non- contributing features, and provide data necessary for future considerations of the property. This document was prepared by Bear Creek Archeology, Inc. of Cresco, Iowa, and any opinions expressed herein represent the views of the primary author. This report documents the Winneshiek County Poor Farm (96-00658) as a historic district containing three distinct buildings and three associated structures. The district consists of the newly constructed (relatively speaking) Wellington Place care facility (96-00660), the Winneshiek County Poor House (96-00659), the Caretaker’s House (96-00644), two sheds, and a picnic shelter, all of which are settled upon 2.7 ha (6.6 ac) on the west side of Freeport, Iowa.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania Avenue Cultural Landscape Inventory
    National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory Pennsylvania Avenue, NW-White House to the Capitol National Mall and Memorial Parks-L’Enfant Plan Reservations May 10, 2016 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW-White House to the Capitol National Mall and Memorial Parks-L’Enfant Plan Reservations Table of Contents Inventory Unit Summary & Site Plan ............................................................................................ Page 3 Concurrence Status ...................................................................................................................... Page 10 Geographic Information & Location Map ................................................................................... Page 11 Management Information ............................................................................................................. Page 12 National Register Information ..................................................................................................... Page 13 Chronology & Physical History ................................................................................................... Page 24 Analysis & Evaluation of Integrity .............................................................................................. Page 67 Condition Assessment .................................................................................................................. Page 92 Treatment ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • View National Trust for Historic Preservation Best Practices
    Cover Memo DATE: MAY 17, 2018 TO: PHILADELPHIA HISTORIC PRESERVATION TASK FORCE FROM: NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION & BUILDING REUSE: BEST PRACTICES RESEARCH Dear Task Force Members: As Technical Advisor to the Mayor Kenney’s Historic Preservation Task Force, the National Trust for Historic Preservation is providing the attached revised summaries of a select group of Best Practices as requested by the Task Force Sub-Committees. This in-depth research builds upon 2-3 months of preliminary research performed in the fall of 2017, presented to the Task Force in mid-January, and available on the Task Force website https://www.phlpreservation.org/. The National Trust undertook an additional 8-week research project to better understand and evaluate a refined list of Best Practices in four core areas – Survey, Outreach + Education, Incentives, and Regulation. Focused primarily, but not exclusively, on the Peer Cities identified earlier in the Task Force proceedings (Chicago, St. Louis, New York, Baltimore, Buffalo, and New Orleans), the National Trust’s Team conducted interviews with public agencies and local non-profits in each Peer City. Based on these interviews, extensive on-line research, and targeted outreach to preservation, public policy, and development professionals, as well as feedback from the Task Force subcommittees on initial drafts, the National Trust prepared the attached summaries of selected Best Practices. Included is an analysis identifying and articulating the benefits, challenges, applicability, funding, staffing requirements, and regulatory framework required for each of these Best Practices to succeed. Based on two rounds and nearly five months of intensive research by a team of eight multi-disciplinary professionals, the National Trust found that there is no “silver bullet” for historic preservation.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Progress Report
    Executive Order 13287 Preserve America Report to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation December 2011 Submitted by U.S. Postal Service, Facilities Headquarters 475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW Washington, DC 20260-1862 EXECUTIVE ORDER 13287: PRESERVE AMERICA REPORT TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION December 2011 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE FACILITIES HEADQUARTERS 475 L’E NFANT PLAZA , SW WASHINGTON , DC 20260-1862 EO 13287 Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................... v 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1 2 Methodology ..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Background Research ................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Internal Postal Service Research ................................................................ 2-1 2.3 Additional Research .................................................................................... 2-1 3 The Postal Service Preservation Program ..................................................... 3-1 3.1 Mission Statement and Background ............................................................ 3-1 3.2 Postal Service Preservation Policy .............................................................. 3-2 3.3 Postal Service Fiscal Constraints: Testimony, Newspaper Articles and the GAO Report .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Slidell Olde Town Design Guidelines
    CITY OF SLIDELL, LOUISIANA SLIDELL OLDE TOWNE PRESERVATION DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES May, 2012 CITY OF SLIDELL, LOUISIANA SLIDELL OLDE TOWNE PRESERVATION DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Maps 3.0 Architectural Style Guide 4.1 Guidelines for Residential Rehabilitation 4.2 Commercial Guidelines for Rehabilitation 5.1 Guidelines Residential for Additions and New Construction 5.2 Guidelines Commercial for Additions and New Construction 6.0 Guidelines for Non-Contributing Properties 7.0 Definitions 8.0 Appendix 0 - 1 Slidell Olde Towne Preservation District Design Guidelines 05/21/12 City of Slidell, Louisiana Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Maps 3.0 Architectural Style Guide 3.0 Brief History of the District 3.1 Colonial Styles A. French Colonial B. Spanish Colonial 3.2 Romantic Styles A. Greek Revival B. Italianate 3.3 Revival Styles A. Colonial Revival 3.4 Victorian Styles A. Folk Victorian B. Queen Anne 3.5 Vernacular Architecture A. Residential Vernacular B. Commercial Vernacular 3.6 Modern Styles A. Craftsman 4.1 Residential Guidelines for Rehabilitation 4.1.0 Applicability 4.1.1 Site A. Walkways B. Landscape D. Fencing, Walls, and Other Site Characteristics 4.1.2. Features A. Form and Style B. Raised Foundations C. Porches, Stoops, Balconies, and Porte- Cochere D. Doors 0 - 2 Slidell Olde Towne Preservation District Design Guidelines 05/21/12 City of Slidell, Louisiana E. Windows F. Roofing G. Exterior Lighting G. Mechanical Systems I. Accessibility J. Environmental K. Accessory Structures 4.1.3. Materials A. Wood B. Masonry C. Stucco D. Metals E.
    [Show full text]
  • ~ 1 ~ the EMBASSY PRESENCE in WASHINGTON, D.C. Priscilla R. Linn
    Living in Washington, D.C. Embassies photo THE EMBASSY PRESENCE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. Priscilla R. Linn May 29, 2014 Finding embassies on a map of Washington, D.C. is a relatively straightforward task. They lie in northwest quadrant of one of the smallest capitals in the world, often lining up along (or close to) the avenues that city planner Pierre L’Enfant drew up over 200 years ago. Other locations in Washington, D.C. could, in principle, welcome many foreign missions. Reasons for the concentration of embassies in Washington hinge on the need to be close to the White House, U.S. Department of State, Congress, and international organizations. Embassies also desire a location in a prestigious neighborhood that can enhance both national identity and standing among nations in the international community. Essential diplomatic terms Since diplomacy often requires a specific vocabulary, this essay will clarify the meaning of several words used here. The Diplomat’s Dictionary defines the word “embassy” as: “The residence of an ambassador.” The Dictionary states that in loose, contemporary usage, the word “embassy” also refers to the office building of the ambassador and his senior staff. For clarity, this essay follows the “loose contemporary usage” for “embassy,” and does not ~ 1 ~ Map from National Area Planning Commission report, Foreign Missions and International Organizations in Washington, D.C. http://www.ncpc.gov/DocumentDepot/Publications/ForeignMissions/Foreign_Missions_Overview.pdf (accessed May 15, 2014) ~ 2 ~ include ambassadors’ residences in the discussion. An embassy also encompasses the diplomatic corps that conducts foreign affairs from the embassy building. People refer to the embassy office building as a “chancery,” where an ambassador and his principal staff conduct diplomatic business.
    [Show full text]
  • Architectural Resource Surveys Frequently Asked Questions
    Architectural Resource Surveys Frequently Asked Questions Architectural Resource Surveys primarily act as a planning tool to provide adequate data to make informed decisions, but most importantly, it documents the City's history and contributes important data into a repository of historical information. Additionally, as a Certified Local Government, there is a commitment by the City to protect its historic resources and provide continuous improvement to historic preservation efforts, including the identification of historic properties within the jurisdiction. The following “Frequently Asked Questions” were composed to provide more information regarding the purpose of architectural resource surveys. What is an Architectural Resource Survey? An Architectural Resource Survey is the identification, research, and documentation of buildings, sites, and structures located in the City of Fort Lauderdale. It includes an evaluation of the architectural style, structural integrity, and character for each building within a specified boundary. How is an Architectural Resource Survey conducted? While the methodology and quantity of information provided for each survey may vary, it typically includes background research, a field survey to photograph each building, and an evaluation of each building. Are there different types of Architectural Resource Surveys? Yes, there are two main types of Architectural Resource Surveys, a “reconnaissance” survey and an “intensive” survey. A reconnaissance survey is utilized as an initial step in an architectural
    [Show full text]
  • Living in a National Register Historic District: What Does It Mean for Portland?*
    Living in a National Register Historic District: What Does it Mean for Portland?* Frequently Asked Questions 1. Will properties in a historic district be subject to demolition review and possible denial? If a property is designated as contributing to a National Register Historic District, demolition is technically possible, but the process is difficult, lengthy, and expensive. The process requires multiple meetings with city staff and public hearings before the Portland Historic Landmarks Commission and City Council and has an total application fee of no less than $14,405. (These combined fees include a Type IV review ($8,902), a mandatory pre-application conference ($5,253), and a land use review fee for the replacement structure (min. $250)). Applications to demolish National Register listed properties are rare. If a property is listed as non-contributing within a historic district, the owner can demolish it without demolition review, but a regular demolition permit would still be required. 2. How does the city regulate modifications to properties in a historic district? Alterations which are not tantamount to demolition are not subject to any additional design review upon a property’s listing in the National Register. That said, the City of Portland has policies which encourage the application of design review to National Register Historic Districts. It is expected that design review for alterations, additions, and new construction will be proposed in the future if the district is listed. The adoption of design review would only happen following an extensive City of Portland process which would include notice, community involvement, public hearings, and a decision to apply design review to the district.
    [Show full text]
  • Old Town College Park Historic District
    Old Town College Park Historic District Prepared for the City of College Park by EHT Traceries, Inc. October 2001 REVISED August 2009 The Old Town College Park Historic District Design Guidelines Handbook should be considered a draft until the Old Town College Park Historic District is designated as a historic district by the State of Maryland. This publication is sponsored by the City of College Park and Prince George’s County. Special thanks to the residents and business owners of College Park for their tireless efforts and participation in the design guidelines process. Project Consultants: EHT Traceries, Inc. 1121 5th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 393-1199 [email protected] Preface Part I: Introduction ..........................................................1 History & Development .................................................2 Boundary Description & Justifi cation ...........................6 Local Historic District Designation ..............................8 Contributing & Non-Contributing Resources ...........10 T Purpose of Design Guidelines ....................................12 Design Review/ Historic Area Work Permits ...........14 ABLE Criteria for HAWP .........................................................18 When is an HAWP Required ........................................20 Secretary of Interior’s Standards .................................22 Part II: Design Guidelines .............................................24 Setback .............................................................................26 Spacing
    [Show full text]