Loading...
HRAB 05-18-93 Meeting Agendao� a COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 ma Fax 703 /678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Historic Resources Advisory Board FROM: Ron Lilley, Planner IIL RE: Meeting Date and Agenda DATE: May 11, 1993 There will be a meeting of the Historic Resources Advisory Board on Tuesday, May 18th, at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room of the Old County Courthouse. Please let me know if you are unable to attend. AGENDA 1. Further consideration of plaque design contest submissions. 2. Discussion of educational/promotional efforts. 3. Update on Civil War preservation efforts. 4. Other, as necessary. Enclosures follow. 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 Enclosures The following items related to the agenda for the meeting, and as follow up to our April meeting, are enclosed. Please review these in preparation for our upcoming meeting: 1. A summary of the April meeting. 2. Notes on Plaque design contest. 3. Notes on staff s findings about interest in the Rural Landmarks video from the Travel Center, Chamber of Commerce, and Schools. 4. Draft letter to civic/social groups concerning Rural Landmarks Survey presentation. 5. Information items - VDHR letter about Sunrise - Spring '93 'Review Board News" Summary of April Meeting Attendance Members: Ray Ewing Mary Jane Light Martin Killingbeck Judith Swiger Lee Taylor Staff: Maral Kalbian, Arch. Hist. Ron Lilley Others: Northern Virginia Daily Agenda items: 1. Discussion with Warren Hofstra Dr. Hofstra presented a proposal for an archaeological study of the Cedar Creek Battlefield Area which he is preparing to submit to the National Park Service for funding. Members indicated a willingness to endorse the project, and agreed to have staff review the draft proposal and then draft a letter of endorsement for HRAB review. Dr. Hofstra was also advised to try to get Board of Supervisors endorsement of the proposal as well. 2. Discussion of Work Program The various tasks of the HRAB were considered, with an effort to establish priorities. It was generally agreed that education for the general public should be given immediate attention, with the other tasks being pursued as much as possible. It was generally agreed that the information program on the Virginia/National Landmarks Register for the owners of the properties considered potentially eligible for the Registers should be held after DHR review of the properties. The DHR review would determine whether properties were, in fact, eligible for the Registers. Waiting for DHR determination would minimise the unnecessary alerting of property owners, since only owners whose properties were known to be eligible for the Registers would be contacted. It would also allow for the DHR to review to archaeological sites and, if any were considered eligible for the Registers, those property owners could also be invited to an informational meeting. Maral Kalbian agreed to coordinate with the DHR for their review and for their post -review notification of property owners to include notice of an informational meeting. The use of the Rural Landmarks Survey presentation for general education was discussed at some length. Staff was asked to draft a letter that could be sent to local civic/social groups announcing the availability of the video and slide show. It was suggested that since a slide show might be better for some situations that a tape recording of the presentation narrative be made. It was agreed that personal accompaniment of the presentation would be preferable and members generally agreed to be available on some sort of rotating, limited basis for accompanying the presentation. Staff was asked to check with the school board about the use of the video in history/social studies classes. Staff was also asked to check with the Chamber of Commerce about their use of such a presentation for tourist groups, possibly checking with the Commonwealth Attorney to see if property owners should be notified if their property is included in a tour. Other work items such as possible tax incentives for historic district properties and possible density provisions for development on historic properties are to be addressed after the May meeting. 3. Plaque Design Contest Members selected five of the nineteen contest entries to forward to the Board of Supervisors for final judging. 4. Allan Tischler Request Members agreed to respond to Mr. Tischler's proposal of acquisition of easements for various Civil War monuments by indicating support for the idea of securing access to all monuments for which access was not already available. Notes on Plaque Design Contest The Board of Supervisors changed their collective mind about choosing first, second, and third place for the design contest. They decided they would rather have a recommendation from the HRAB about first, second, and third place, so the HRAB will need to consider the top five entries again and come up with such a recommendation. The top five submissions will be at the meeting for further judging. Educational/Promotional Efforts Staff is in the process of checking with the Travel Center, Chamber of Commerce, and Schools about possibly using a copy of the Rural Landmarks Survey video for educational and tourism -enhancing efforts. An update of findings will be provided at our meeting. A draft letter to civic/social groups concerning presentation of the Rural Landmarks Survey video/slide show is attached. This can be discussed and refined as necessary. We can also try to develop a list of organizations to send such a letter to. Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board NOTICE TO CIVIC/SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS Attn: Program Chairmen RE: Frederick County Historic Resources -- Educational Presentation The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board is pleased to announce the availability of a slide show and video on the recently completed Rural Landmarks Survey of Frederick County. The Survey reports on a wide range of architecturally and historically significant properties in the County, providing an interesting and educational background on the County. Members of the Historic Resources Advisory Board are available to accompany this presentation. The presentation is approximately 40 minutes long. If you are interested in having this presentation at one of your organization's meetings, please contact Mr. Ron Lilley, HRAB staff at the Frederick County Planning Department, at 665-5651. Information Items - VDHR letter about Sunrise - copy of Tischler correspondence - Spring '93 'Review Board News" 0C)"MLM®NW EALTH ®f V IRC-jNIA Hugh C. Miller, Director Department of Historic Resources 221 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 April 21, 1993 Robert W. Watkins. Director Frederick County Planning 9 Court Square P_ 0_ Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Sunrise, Frederick County (DHR File N2 34-486) Dear Mr. Watkins: TDD: (804) 786-1934 Telephone (804) 786-3143 FAX: (804) 225-4261 At its April 20 meeting, the State Review Board determined that Sunrise appears to meet the criteria for listing on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places_ The staff of the Department of Historic Resources does not plan to prepare the national register nomination which is the required next step in the registration process, as our work program is fully scheduled for the remainder of the year and we normally limit our crecaration of nominations to those properties for which the Department is accepting an easement. Should the preparation of a nomination go forward you will be notified prior to any formal action by the Department or the Board. Thank you for your interest in the register program. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding the registration process, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, W James Christian will National Register Assistant Q4L 4Re.Esp. FILE COPY COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 April 21, 1993 Allan L. Tischler 841 Wardensville Grade Winchester, Virginia 22602 Re: Easements for Civil War Monuments Dear Mr. Tischler: As staff for the County's Historic Resources Advisory Board, I have received a copy of your letter of March 19th to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. I have followed up your proposal by ascertaining VDOT's policy regarding ISTEA funding and by having the Historic Resources Advisory Board consider the proposal at their April 20th meeting. Thank you for bringing the sites that you are interested in having easements on to our attention. As you may be aware, the HRAB is working diligently to identify and then establish ways of protecting the County's historic resources. We are considering various financial arrangements for our goals, and are pleased with the possibility of ISTEA enhancement funds for historic preservation efforts. At this point, however, there are no ISTEA enhancement funds scheduled for disbursement to Frederick County. The HRAB expressed support for the idea of securing access to the monuments for which public access is not already available, and supported the idea of applying for ISTEA funds to acquire such easements. The Planning Department is in the process of developing recommendations of projects to submit to VDOT for ISTEA funding this year. Such project proposals require that the sources of a minimum 20% local contribution of the cost be identified. If this project is deemed among the best for submission, your information about these monument sites may be very helpful. Thanks again for your input. Sincerely, Ronald A. Lilley `15�(r Planner II/HRAB Staff copy to: Board of Supervisors John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator Robert W. Watkins, Planning Director 9 North Lnudoun Street P.O. Box 601 V�'inchcster, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 --------------------- PR 2 81993 I Allan L. Tischler 841 Wardensville Grade Winchester, VA 22602 "Valley District" Mr. Ronald Lilley, Planner II HRAB Staff Frederick Co. Planning and Development Dept. 9 North Loudoun St. Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Lilley: April 28, 1993 I am in receipt of your letter of the 21st instant. Your letter was dated one day after the HRAB meeting wherein you claimed there you would submit the proposal to them. In the future, I will present my proposals myself, in lieu of others, especially those so employed by the County. I was not aware of any diligence on behalf of the HRAB to identify any sites, much less those I have proveably worked to research and preserve through the local ordinances and zoning applications. I can only surmise that the reason the HRAB has not contacted me since County Administrator Riley signed my dismissal letter is due to the prevarications of politics and abject ignorance. You missed the clear point I made about the Civil War Monuments. It does not matter that VDOT has the right-of-way easement. VDOT should nct be the sole governmental entity handling the care and protection of what are really historic landmarks, as is the case now. On the State level, the Dept. of Historic Resources should be the agency, yet since they cannot ascribe to this rationally, then an arm of the plentiful "expert" boards, commissions, etc. actually willing to assume some real responsibilty beyond pushing paper and elevating personal reputations should do so. Therefore, the official HRAB reply you forwarded is unacceptable. There is only one site that is encompassed by private land and it is my determination that neither the HRAB or the civil employee staff of the County are professionally or ethically disposed to handle it, and surely nothing would be done on your (respectively) own due to the rubber-stamping and posturing and politization of HRAB. Your governmental stance is against genuine Civil War site preservation, and it is my firm belief it will not change honestly. cc: CW News, Wash. Post, Camp Chase R etfull , Gazette, Congressional offices, etc. /'Midst Allan L. Tischler ZEVIEW B OAR -D. -O. NEWS f PRESERVATION ALLIANCE OF VIRGINIA No. 18 • Spring • 1993 Preservation Training for Building Code Staff by Peter H. Smith, Principal Staff, Boards of Architectural Review and Paul Radauskas, Acting Director, Code En- forcement Bureau, City of Alexandria For a typical ARB, the building code depart- ment is the first line of defense and is usually the most knowledgeable source of building activity taking place in a City. Based upon our experiences, we would urge ARBs and their staffs to consider cross -training with their build- ing inspection departments as one means to assure understanding of common city goals and foster preservation. The Staff of the Boards of Architectural Review (ARB) in Alexandria recently conducted a workshop/training session for the staff of the City's building code depart- ment. From the establishment of the first Board of Architectural Review in Alexandria in 1946 until the mid-1990s, the Boards were adminis- tered by the City's building code department. In 1984, the administrative functions of the Boards were transferred to the Department of Planning and Community Development. There are still close ties between the two departments. Alexandria is fortunate in having a code enfor- cement official attend each public hearing of the Board to answer questions from the mem- bers and the public. Over the course of the last eight years, however, the intimate day-to-day understanding of process and working relation- ship between the ARB and the building code department that once prevailed had begun to erode. In late 1992, at the suggestion of the Acting Director of the Code Enforcement Bureau, the staff of the ARB put together a short training program in preservation in Alexandria for the building code field inspectors and engineers of the Bureau. The goals of the program were, first, to re-establish the understanding of the ARB's role and mission and, second, to foster an appreciation for the existing physical fabric of the architectural heritage of the City's his- toric districts. These types of educational ses- sions have been performed in several localities for elected officials, but seldom for City field staff who can help ensure that projects are con- structed as intended by the ARB. The training program was divided into three phases: an introductory educational session; a walking tour through one of the historic dis- tricts; and, attendance at one of the weekly public hearings of the ARBs. The first two parts of the program lasted a total of two hours; the third somewhat longer because of the vaga- ries of the ARB public hearing. The lecture session included a slide presentation that em- phasized the importance and range of architec- ture in two historic districts; a discussion of the legal mandate of the ARBs; how they operate and who the members of the Boards are; a -dis- cussion of the overlapping requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; and, finally, a description of the typical approval process for an ARB appli- cation. The walking tour, though confined to one of the districts because of time limitations, cov- ered the wide range of issues that face the ARBs and their staffs. For example, the tours pointed out examples of appropriate replace- ment in-kind; situations that do not require a building permit but do require ARB approval; the scale of projects considered by the ARB, from individual signs for a retail business to the design of whole office buildings; and architec- tural examples where the preservation of the existing historic fabric is of paramount impor- tance. The ARB public hearing attended by the build- ing inspection staff was chosen based upon a meeting agenda that illustrated the complex and controversial issues with which the ARBs must deal. At the public hearing, the code inspectors witnessed, first hand, the intense citizen con- cem about preservation in the historic districts. The training session has created a more under- standing relationship between the ARB staff and the building code staff of the City as well as a number of tangible changes in policy. For example, progress inspections of approved ARB work will be conducted at least once a week and inspections of framing for new construction or additions will be done to ensure that ap- proved windows and doors will fit the location and size approved by the ARB. The ARB staff has also agreed to work closely with the Exist- ing Structures (Volume ED code inspectors to Where is new architectural design headed in old Southwest? Shown at top is the original design (March OSW News) submit- ted to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for approval. The ARB deemed the design unacceptable and informed Therapies of Roanoke, Inc. that a new design be prepared for their consideration. The new design (lower drawing) for Therapies of Roanoke, Inc. received preliminary approval from the ARB at its April 8 meeting. Minor revisions were suggested by the ARB and the design wt71 be suhmitted on May 13 for final ARB approval. The Architectural Re- view Board made clear its desire for a building of modern design to be constructed in Old Southwest. (Editor's Note: The above drawings and article are courtesy of Old Southwest News, the newsletter of Old Southwest, Inc., a neighborhood preservation group in Roanoke. Old Southwest monitors ARB actions in the neighborhood, and President Kent Chrisman indicated that the above drawings were included in the newsletter to point to the importance of both massing and detailing when reviewing new construction in a historic district. For additional information contact Mr. Chrisman at (703) 342-4885.) prevent demolition by neglect of properties in the historic districts. In the near future, we plan on providing train- ing for the ARB Staff in the workings of the Code Enforcement Bureau. For additional information on these ARB and Code Enforcement training sessions, contact Peter Smith at the Alexandria Department of Planning and Community Development (703) 838-4666. Brick Sidewalks in D.C. Targeted Under ADA (Editor's Note: Al Cox, Staff Architect for the Old and Historic Alexandria District ARB brought the following article to our attention. The Alexandria ARB is very concerned about the aesthetic impact and cost of removing the brick sidewalks in the historic districts. It is the condition of the walk, not the brick itself, that determines accessibility. The Alliance would like to hear from other ARB s around the state that are facing similar issues. We'll run your comments in future issues of the Review Board News.) The red brick sidewalks in the District of Co- lumbia's historic districts may have bent and buckled over the years, but many residents of these quaint neighborhoods still prefer them to smooth concrete walkways. The same sidewalks that accent Victorian row houses, however, can be major obstacles to elderly and disabled persons who use crutches, walkers, wheelchairs and motorized scooters. Their difficulties are threatening to halt an ex- panding program to brick over aging concrete walkways in district neighborhoods protected by preservation laws. The reason: new federal scrutiny into whether the brick sidewalks may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, the 1990 law that prohi- bits public facilities that discriminate against A the disabled. The accessibility issue was raised by a 69 -year- old retired lawyer who relies on a motorized scooter as a result of a degenerative muscle disease. At a recent council public works com- mittee budget hearing, he pleaded for the dis- trict to halt the bricking program and consider replacing existing bricks with concrete. "There are legitimate concerns relating to his- torical preservation and to the accessibility for persons with disabilities," said Marsha Mazz, technical assistance coordinator for the Federal Access Board. The board, charged with recommending guide- lines to the U. S. Department of Justice on how the broad act should apply to specific situa- tions, is studying the issue and seeking public comment. If federal law prohibits construction of new brick sidewalks, it would override the district's 1985 historic preservation law, which requires that bricks be used whenever more than 20 feet of sidewalk is repaired in six of its 36 historic districts. Those wishing to comment may write the Fede- ral Access Board, Docket No. 92-2, 1331 F Street, NW, Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20004-1111. The following individuals, businesses, and foundations have provided underwriting support of the Preservation Alliance over the past year: Anonymous (1); the Association for the Pres- ervation of Virginia Antiquities; Mrs. A.D. Barksdale; Mr. and Mrs. S. Allen Chambers, Jr.; the Eugene Holt Foundation; Mr. and Mrs. Addison B. Thompson. For additional information on the work of the Preservation Alliance, contact Executive Direc- tor David J. Brown at (703) 886-4362. ARB Motion Form (Editor's Note: The City of Petersburg ARB uses the following form when making motions on projects requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness. Having a form helps build an appropriate and defensible legal record for the decisions of the ARB. For additional information, contact Leslie Naranjo-Lupold, City of Petersburg (804) 733-2308.) I, move to: Name Approve the request Deny the request Accept staff's recommendation as ap- pears in the agenda item for Street Address to state nature of request/alterations etc for the following reasons: the proposed is consistent/inconsistent (check each that applies) with the design review guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Stan- dards and Guidelines and the following factors are compatible material _ size _ color scale - design (overall or elements of) - detailing and complies with the City Zoning Or- dinance or on the condition that it meet regulations in the City Zoning Ordinance Meeting date: month day year -------------------------- For Secretary: Motion seconded by _ Vote: Ayes , Abstentions Notations Nays Preservation Alliance of Virginia Non -Profit Org. Post Office Box 1407 U. S. Postage PAID Staunton, VA 24402-1407 Staunton, VA Permit No. 10 MIST RES ADVISORY BOARD KRIS C TIERNEY AICP PO BOX 601 WINCHESTER VA 22601