Loading...
HRAB 11-15-11 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK sk®e� I MEMORANDUM TO: Historic Resources Advisory Board FROM: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner` RE: October 2011 HRAB Meeting Agenda DATE: November 3, 2011 Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) will be meeting on Tuesday, November 15. 2011, at 6:30 p.m in the Board of Supervisors Executive Session Room* in the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. The HRAB will discuss the following items: AGENDA 1. HRAB Minutes— May 2011 and October 2011 2. Review of the AT&T Commercial Telecommunications Facility Conditional Use Permit (proposed tower located at 3392 Back Mountain Road). 3. HRAB Meeting Procedures Please contact this office if you will not be able to attend the meeting. Thank VOU. *PLEASE NOTE MEETING LOCATION Access to this building is limited during the evening hours. Therefore, it will be necessary to enter the building through the rear door of the Board Room. I would encourage Committee members to park in the County parking lot located behind the new addition (accessible off of Cameron Street). CEP/bad Attachments 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Item # 1 Minutes DRAFT Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) May 17, 2011 Board of Supervisors Executive Session Room of the County Administrative building 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA Members Present: Rhoda Kriz (Chairman), Elizabeth Fravel, Stacey Yost, Mary Turner, Lauren Murphy, Robert Hess, Clint Jones, Gary Oates Members Absent: Claus Bader, Maral Kalbian Staff Present: Candice E. Perkins Applicants Present: Tracy L. Anderson, Donohue & Stearns, PLC Agenda Items: Update of the of the AT&T Telecommunications Facility CUP (Indian Hollow Road) Application, Call to order at 6:30 PM. Item One: The first item was the minutes from the April 2011 HRAB Meeting. There was a recommendation for approval of the minutes and a second, the HRAB then voted to approve the April 2011 minutes. Item Two: Planner Perkins introduced the first agenda item which was an update to the AT&T telecommunication facility CUP application for 2418 Indian Hollow Road which was originally discussed and voted on at the April 2011 meeting. The applicant then provided an overview of the application and what had happened since the last HRAB meeting. The applicant stated that the height of the tower is remaining the same as previously discussed due to the potential for future co -locators. The applicant then passed out simulated photographs of the proposed tower as viewed from roadways near the three historic properties. HRAB members expressed concern over the visual impact that the tower would create. The applicant then stated that the property owner actually owns three of the historic properties that were discussed by the HRAB at the April meeting (Old Hoover Place, the Larrick-Hatcher House and Selma) and that the property owner does not intend to have additional historic survey work done on the structures. The applicant then read portions of a letter written by the property owner regarding the historic properties. The owner stated that the Old Hoover Place and the Ramey House have no historical attributes and that Selma and the Larrick-Hatcher House have undergone major renovations and therefore are not eligible for the historic register. The HRAB disagreed with the information provided by the property owner. One HRAB member stated that the land owner is not concerned about the tower and that the existing electric poles have a similar impact that the tower would. Another member stated that the comments from the last meeting are still accurate and that while there were many types of intrusions to the historic landscape the preference was not to have the tower. The HRAB then asked the applicant if the tower could be located closer to the existing tree line of the property, the applicant responded that the tower was currently sitting at the minimum distance allowed from Indian Hollow Road and that the tower was cited in that location to reduce visibility of the tower. Planner Perkins then stated that since the application has not substantially changed from the April 2011 vote and the majority of the members still felt that the April 2011 vote was accurate, another formal vote was not necessary and that the applicant would be forwarded a comment letter based on the April meeting. A HRAB, member again stated that the comments and vote from the April meeting still stand. Item Three: Planner Perkins introduced the second item which was a proposed rezoning for the Kesari Third Generation, LLC property. This applications seeks to rezone five acres of land from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the 132 (Business General) District. The property is located on the west side of Route 11 near its intersection with Hopewell Road. The proposed use of the property is commercial uses, including enhancement of the Olde Stone Truck Stop. The Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, published by the National Park Service, does not identify the subject property or the surrounding area as being part of a battlefield. The Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County Virginia identifies three historic structures located within the vicinity of the proposed rezoning, one of which is located on site. All of these properties are listed as potentially significant. The sites that are listed in the survey are: • Dick, L.O. House (#34-936) — Located on site • Clearbrook Feed & Supply (#34-935) • Clearbrook Presbyterian Church (#34-708) After reviewing this information and the applicant's materials and proposals, the Historic Resource Advisory Board had discussion on the following: • Minimizing the impacts to Route 11 to help preserve the historic integrity. • Additional screening along the Route 11 frontage to help screen the historic property. • The L.O. Dick House should be preserved for adaptive reuse. A preservation proffer should be included in the proffer statement to ensure that the dwelling and associated outbuildings will not be demolished (including demolishment by neglect). • Additional/updated historic documentation on the structure. After the HRAB concluded their discussions, they recommended approval of the rezoning application with the following conditions: • Inclusion of a preservation proffer with adaptive reuse of the structure. • Screening of the pumps on the Olde Stone Truck Stop from the L.O. Dick House. • A new architectural/historic survey should be completed on the structure. Meeting was adjourned at 7:30p.m. 2 DRAFT Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) October 18, 2011 Board of Supervisors Executive Session Room of the County_ Administrative building 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA Members Present: Rhoda Kriz (Chairman), Elizabeth Fravel, Mary Turner, Robert Hess, George Kriz (for Gary Oates); Maral Kalbian Members Absent: Claus Bader, Stacey Yost, Lauren Murphy, Clint Jones, Denny Perry Staff Present: Candice E. Perkins Applicants Present: Tracy L. Anderson, Donohue & Stearns, PLC Agenda Items: AT&T Telecommunications Facility CUP (Back Mountain Road) Application, Historic Plaque Application for the Glass Rinker Cooper Mill, and HRAB Meeting Procedures Call to order at 6:30 PM. Item One: Planner Perkins introduced the first agenda item which was an AT&T telecommunication facility CUP for 3392 Back Mountain Road. Staff informed the applicant that due to the fact a quorum was not present for the HRAB membership that a vote could not take place and that only discussion could occur at this meeting. Staff then provided a brief overview of the submittal and the application was then provided the opportunity to speak about the request. The HRAB asked the applicant what the range would be for the tower, and the applicant responded that it is typically three miles. The applicant further stated that the need for a new tower can be prompted by complaints about service within an area. The HRAB also questioned what population this tower would serve as well as the location of the closest towers to this proposed new tower. The applicant stated that they would need to check this information and get back to the group. The HRAB then discussed the historic nature of the area around the proposed tower and the fact that it has a collection of buildings and the area is very pristine. Furthermore for this area it was the center of early settlement and industry. The group questioned whether the applicant could find a farm complex within the area and increase the height of an existing silo. The applicant responded that typically the higher silos are more conspicuous than a new tower. The HRAB then stated that this tower application appears to be requesting the maximum typically seen. The HRAB felt that the application is pushing more than what it will need and that this tower will be very visually intrusive and will have an impact on the surrounding area. The applicant responded that if they provided a lower tower in this area that they would need to construct additional towers closer together to provide coverage. The nature of the historic house on the subject property was discussed. It appears that this structure is a two section house constructed in the late 181h century and it is situated in a very scenic and well preserved area. The HRAB concluded their discussions at this point and would take the item up again at their November meeting with additional information to be provided by the applicant (propagation maps and locations of existing towers in the area). Item Two: Planner Perkins introduced the second item which a Historic Property Designation Application (historic plaque) for the Glass Rinker Cooper Mill. After reviewing this information provided by the applicant and the site description by Maral Kalbian the Historic Resources Advisory board felt that the property deserved the historic property designation and voted to award the Glass Rinker Cooper Mill with Historic Plaque #30. Item Three: Planner Perkins stated that due to the fact that many of the members were not present for this meeting that the HRAB meeting procedures discussion could wait until the next meeting. The HRAB agreed and decided to hold off on this discussion until the November meeting. At the end of the meeting an overview was provided by George Kriz of the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan. Rhoda Kriz then discussed the progress of the historic resources portion of the area plan. Meeting was adjourned at 7:45p.m. 2 Item # 2 AT&T Commercial Telecommunications Facility Conditional Use Permit The Historic Resources Advisory Board has been requested to review and provide comments on the AT&T Commercial Telecommunications Conditional Use Permit application for a 199 -foot monopole tower with accessory 50' x 50' equipment compound located at the base of the monopole. The property is located at 3392 Back Mountain Road. The Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley published by the National Park Service does not identify the proposed tower site or the surrounding areas as being part of a battlefield. The Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County Virginia identifies three potentially significant structures within the immediate area of the subject site; one structure is located on site. The sites that are listed in the survey are: • House, Route 600 (#34-193) — Located on site, Potentially Significant • Taylor Furnace Farm — (#34-734) — Potentially Significant • Saint John's Lutheran Church (#34-360) — Potentially Significant The HRAB discussed this application at their October 18, 2011; however, due to the lack of a quorum, a vote could not be taken. The following information was distributed with the October HRAB agenda: CUP Application, site plan sheet, monopole simulations, sections from the NEPA Report, and pictures of the historic structures. Additional copies of the attachments have not been provided with this agenda; please contact staff if you need the attachments emailed to you. Draft minutes from the October meeting have been included with this agenda to provide an overview of the previous discussion. Representatives of the applicant will be available at the HRAB meeting to provide additional information on the proposed CUP. Staff will be seeking comments from the HRAB on the historical elements possibly impacted by proposed development. The comments will be included in the CUP application package for the AT&T Tower proposal when it is submitted. Existin!° g AT&T Coverage withou# Back Mountain 6. • =ti ■ ", ^ ,* .b. HUNTING%RIDGE IF 44 rr- Back Mountain �✓ -� �, OPEQUON Ly�k t cif ,r S ddMh —A LL•EG ce 7� AT8T On -Air Sites 0 2.286 } Proposed ATST Site , miles Existing Covet age }. Scale: 1:89,360 Properietary 8 Confidential: AT nd,Authorized Clierds oniy STEes Back Mountain Proposed Location with Surroundinq Sites 50a Hiatt Rd HO/mwel/ Bru�etQ 14 1s _ ? Swtm'ey Pd HAMPSHIRE Stephenson ?�a 259 3387 HILL CREST-WC904arl�S�� WEST VIRGINIA -� /' 39.1914, -78.1991 1234 HUNTING RIDGE 39.2152, -78.2667 __ 4 Petticoat Gap 50 3386 ALLEGHENY SHANNON COO a 39.163, -78.2105 BACK MOUNTAIN SARF my' 37 39.15222°N 78.35$89°W f 7 �c WINCHESTEP., �d Opequone. de 1253 SHENANDOAH UNIVERSITY PRIMARY CANDIDATE Z F e.� o 39.1656, -78.1536 39.15512°N 78.366020W 4�� `' 1475 OPEQUON j FREDERICK 39.1438, -78.2619 V I R G !,'N i A 1 522 Oq C L A R K: E' 654 STEPHEN CITY4� Q�ee 9- 39.1239, -78.212 I �� hQste�� N MPAboro R . P� torF Tasker Armel Stephens City. 11 laoyce 255 Star Tannery, 55 �a f 2P0� 277 �m 3405 Q - to 17 1 AJC' 49 TA�e �G^� Greenway /o Court �o - S H E N A N D O A H MiddletoWn Red Copyright © and (P) 1988-2008 Microsoft Corporation and/or its suppliers. All rights reserved. http:!/www.microsoft.com/streetsl b ml 2 4 6 8 10 Certain mapping and direction data © OAR NAB trod All rights reserved. The Data for areas of Canada includes information taken with permission from Canadian authorities, including: © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, © Queen's Printer for Ontario. NAVTEQ and NAVTEQ ON BOARD are trademarks of NAVTEQ. ©2008 Tele Atlas North America, Inc. All rights reserved. Tele Atlas and Tele Atlas North. America are trademarks of Tele Atlas, Inc. 0 2008 by Applied Geographic Systems. All rights reserved. Item # 3 HRAB Meeting Procedures Staff would like to take some time at the October HRAB meeting to go over the meeting procedures and guiding principles behind the Historic Resources Advisory Board. Attached for review prior to the meeting are: • HRAB Bylaws • Principles Guiding the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board • Guide to Conduct of Meetings • Formulating Good Recommendations The purpose of this overview is to ensure that staff is providing adequate information prior to the meeting, and that the HRAB meetings are conducted in accordance with adopted procedure. BYLAWS FREDERICK COUNTY HISTORIC RESOURCE ADVISORY BOARD (HRAB) I. Purpose of the HRAB 1.1 Mission Statement - Provide guidance to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors on issues concerning the County's historic resources. 1.2 The HRAB was created in 1987 by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to consider the impact of a rezoning or development on historically and architecturally significant sites and structures. 1.3 The HRAB will make recommendation of applications, either approval, approval with conditions or denial. The recommendation will be based upon the proposed treatment of historic resources as well as the degree of their significance. If conditions are placed on the application, they shall be based on attached document "Formulating Good Recommendations ". II. Membership 2.1 The HRAB consists of nine voting members, one member from each magisterial district and three members at large. In addition to a Planning Commission Liaison, a staff member from the Planning Department, as well as an historic preservation consultant that advises the Board, also attend the meetings. 2.2 Members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors. 2.3 The Chairman and Vice Chairman shall be elected by the HRAB for a term of one year. 2.4 The HRAB will have an annual training session. 2.5 HRAB members will be encouraged to attend outside training sessions and conferences. 2.6 If an HRAB member has a conflict of interest with an application, it is expected that they refrain from making recommendations. III. Meetings 3.1 Meetings are held the third Tuesday of the month from 6:30pm to 8:OOpm as needed, meetings are also open to the public. 3.2 Special meetings may be called for training sessions or if more time is needed for discussion of applications. Special meetings maybe called for by the Chairman and the Planning Staff. 3.3 The staff member for the HRAB is required to make site inspections for all applications. The HRAB members are also encouraged to make site visits. 3.4 Since the HRAB is an advisory Board and only makes recommendations, public hearing and public notices are not required. 3.5 A majority of the members present is required for an approval or denial recommendation; however, all recommendations will be recorded. 3.6 The HRAB will be courteous and respectful to each other and all applicants. 0 3.7 Regular attendance is expected of all members of the HRAB. If a member is unable to attend, it is expected that he/she notify the staff. Once a member has missed three (3) unexcused HRAB meetings, he/she shall be referred for replacement. Powers &Duties 4.1 The role of the HRAB is to make recommendations for properties that are or may be considered historic or potentially significant when land development applications are submitted to the county. 42 Fulfill responsibilities as designated by the HA Historic Overlay Zone Ordinance (Article XVI HA Historic Area Overlay Zone — Frederick County Zoning Ordinance), 4.3 Make recommendations utilizing the "Formulating Good Recommendations" handout. (See attachment) 4.4 Encourage historic preservation in Frederick County by recognizing significant historic resources. V. Application Review Process 5.1 Complete applications (see HRAB submission requirements) must be received at least three (3) weeks prior to a scheduled HRAB meeting, ensuring that the HRAB will receive their agenda two (2) weeks prior to a meeting. Once an application is received, the staff member shall research the project and prepare an agenda for the HRAB Members. At the HRAB meeting, the applicant is expected to be present to answer any questions that the board may have. 5.2 The HRAB shall provide a recommendation to the applicant during the meeting unless the applicant requests to bring the application back to the board at a later time. 5.3 Staff is responsible for notifying the applicant in writing of the HRAB's action on the application. The notification letter should include all reasons for approval, approval with conditions or denial. VI. Bylaw Amendment Process 6.1 If a member of the HRAB desires to amend the bylaws, that member would need to bring up the recommendation under the other portion of the meeting. A vote would then be held with the members and if a majority vote is given a discussion will be held as to how to amend the bylaws. Once the changes have been discussed and agreed upon, staff will provide the HRAB members with a copy of the amended bylaws to adopt at the next scheduled meeting. Adopted: March 15, 2005 Amended: January 17, 2006 GIBE TO CONDUCT OF YMETINGS All meetings shall be open to the public. The order of business may include: f. Call to Order ❑ Note the time. ❑ Ask visitors to sign a roster, pick up a copy of the agenda. 2. Can the Roll ❑ Note excused absences. ❑ Record the presence of a Quorum ❑ Introduce members of the Board and stag 3. Approve the minutes of the previous meeting ❑ Ask for motion to waive reading of minutes. ❑ Ask for any corrections or additions to minutes. ❑ Adopt minutes_ . Consider ai y old Business, including continued applications, Then New Business, following these: Procedures for Considedoz Applications ❑ Call for the application according to the agenda ❑ Conflict of Interest.'Cneck for conflicts of interest among Board members & record them. ❑ Staff Summary. Ask for staff summary of application status, including any new or revised plans submitted by the applicant. ❑ Swortin Testimony. 1. Call on applicant to present evidence in support of application.. 2. Ask for any others who have evidence in support of application (Record them by name and address). ❑ opposing Testimony. 1. Ask for any with evidence in opposition to application_ 2. Record them by name and address. ❑ uestions. Ask if anyone has any further questions about the application. ❑ Rebuttal. 1. Give applicant opportunity to rebut any evidence in opposition. 2. Remind person that only neve information should be presented in rebuttal, not a rehash of initial supporting evidence. ❑ Summary. Have staff summarize the evidence and facts presented. ❑ Discussion. Invite Board to discuss the application in relation to the "Criteria for Determining Historic Significance" in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance (Sect. 165-124). Discuss only the facts and evidence presented. Do not talk about hunches, rumors or speculations. ❑ Conditions. Discuss the appropriateness of recommending conditions for approval of the application- ® Recommendation & Findiwrs of Fact. Ask for a Motion for Recommendation & Findings of Fact: "I move that, based upon the evidence presented in the application and during this public meetixag, the Board recommend that the proposed application be: ❑ Approved ❑ Approved subject to the following conditions: o List conditions ® Denied for the following reasons: 1. Cite the specific criteria 2. Cite specific facts about the application upon which you are basing your decision Ask for Second for th -motion/ Any for-a=Vote. ❑ Thank applicant and others for corm Zet them=know_that they will receive a copy of the official action from staE ❑ Repeat above steps for any other applications on the aLenda 5. Committee Reports, if any 6. Public Comment (Optional) Ask if any members of the public have any comments that do not pertain to business before the Board 7. Adjournment -- Note time. REFERENCE: For important tips on ensuring effective and defensible application review procedures, refer to the Architectural Review Board Handbook Chapter 7. Principles Guiding the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board May 14, 2004 The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board will: Work continually to increase its knowledge of the history and the historic and archeological resources of Frederick County; m Educate the public regarding Frederick County's rich history and the significance of its historic and archeological resources; Seek to instill in all a respect and reverence for Frederick County's heritage and a desire to preserve and protect its historic and archeological resources; Apply the highest historic preservation standards applicable to the resources present using the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes as our overarching guides; p Seek highly qualified advice on appropriate treatment methods to be recommended for historic and archeological resources; Provide clear and implementable preservation recommendations; Focus our strongest preservation recommendations on those resources that are of the highest significance and that maintain the highest integrity; -- -__ ® Promote County policies and regulations that reflect ahigh preservation ethic; Maintain a knowledgeable and well-trained board- Formulating Good Recommendations June 2004 Findings Provide case number, approval being requested, and location of the property Describe and address the significance of the historic resources found on the property • Virginia Landmarks Register or National Register resources present • Local HA Overlay District resources present • Resources identified in the Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County • Battlefield or site identified in the Frederick County Battlefield Network Plan • Resource recognized as significant in the Third Winchester (Opequon) Battlefield Preservation Plan, the Kernstown Battlefield Resource Management Plan or the Star Fort Management and Interpretation Plan • Battlefield identified in the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National historic District (SVBNHD) Management Plan • Other resource not yet recognized or surveyed Describe and address the significance of the historic resources found on adjacent properties (address same list as above) Describe applicant's proposed treatments / protections for the on-site and off-site historic resources and their adequacy in protecting the identified resources "Based on these findings, we recommend the following: • Approval as proposed; -or:—,-'— - _ • Approval with the following additional recommendations; or • Denial; or _. _ . • Denial, but if the Planning -Commission / Board of Supervisors chooses to approve, then we offer the following recommendations; and / or • Additional review of the proposed development by the HRAB is needed at master development plan/site planisubdivision plat submission, because the applicant is unable to provide enough information about the proposed development at this time for adequate HRAB recommendations to be made." Formulating Good Recommendations, June 2004 Prepared bySympoeticq yfbodstock, VA Page l Recominendatiens The following provides some guidance on the types of recommendations that the HRAB might offer based on the type and significance of the resource. It can be used as a decision document to help guide the HR.AB through an organized process of developing a recommendation - 1_ U there a historic or archeological resource located on the subject property? 1.1 Yes, we know or suspect there is a historic or archeological resource on the subject property based on a review of all available studies. Go to Section 2. 1.2 No, but the property is located in an identified historic area, such as a district identified in the Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County or a battlefield or site identified in any Frederick County or SVBNHD battlefield plan. Go to Section 3- 1.3 No, there is no known resource on the property, but resources are found on an adjacent property or a property within the immediate viewshed. Go to Section 4. 1.4 No, there are no known resources on the subject property or on adjacent property or in the immediate viewshed. In addition, the property is not in an identified historic area or battlefield. No HRAB recommendation is necessary. 2. A historic or archeological resource is located on the subject property. For each resource present, answer the following questions: 2.1 Is there sufficient information on the integrity and significance of the resource for 2.1.1 Yes. Go to Section 2.2. 2.1.2- ---No.- 2-1-2.1 -No:2.1.2.1 Recommend that the applicant be required to fund and carry out a study by a qualified historian, architectural historian or archeologist to evaluate the integrity and significance of the resource and submit it to the HRAB before the proposal goes to the Board of Supervisors. When the study is submitted, go to Section 2.2. 2.1.2.2Ask the Virginia DHR to do a preliminary evaluation of the resource, then base the MAB recommendation on that evaluation. Go to Section 2-2- 2.1-2-3 Recommend that the applicant be required to fund and carry out a study by a qualified historian, architectural historian or archeologist to evaluate the integrity and significance of the resource and submit it to the HRAB prior to any development on the property going forward. The HRAB would make its recommendations at this point using the process starting at Section 22- 2.2 ghat is the historic or archeological significance of the resource? 2.2.1 The resource is on or eligible for the Virginia Landmarks Register or the National Register of Historic Places, but is not in a Frederick County HA overlay district. Go to Section 2.3. 2.2.2 The resource is located in a Frederick County HA overlay district. Go to Section 2.4. Formulating Good Recommendations, .Tune 2004 Prepared by Sympoeticq Woodstock V4 Page 2 2.2.3 The resource is located in an identified historic area, such as a district identified in the Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County or a battlefield or site identified in any Frederick County or SVBNHD battlefield plan- Go to Section 2.5. 2.2.4 All other properties with historic or archeological resources, go to Section 2-6. 2-3 Virginia Landmarks Register or National Register of Historic Places Properties: 2.3.1 What is the integrity of the resource? 2.3. 1-1 The resource has moderate to high integrity and is worthy of preservation. Go to 2.3.2. 2.3.1.2 The resource has been so damaged that it no longer meets the standards for the register. Go to 2.3.3. 23.2 Register property with integrity. Recommend the following - 2.3 -2.1 The resource should be preserved in place with a conservation easement. The resource may be used as it was originally used or adaptively reused as long as its historic or archeological value is maintain d- 2-3-2-2 Any treatment of the buildings or structures should meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings. Go to Section 5, but also consider Sections 2-3.2.3 and 23.2.4. 2.32.3 If the land associated with the resource conte -butes to its - significance and maintains inte_grity,_.then the.d.,area contributing to the resource should be set aside in a conservation easement and should be subject to the Secretary of the. Interior's Standards_ for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. If the land contributing to the resource is so large as to unreasonably restrict development on the subject property, then the applicant should provide a viewshed analysis from the resource and preserve the land area within the foreground view with a conservation easement. 2.3.2.4 If the land originally associated with the resource has lost its integrity, then the applicant should provide a landscape or full screen and buffer for the resource as specified in Section 165-37 D., Category C of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Fences and walls provided for screening should be of a type that reflects the period of significance for the historic resource. The HRAB may modify this recommendation to respond to specific site conditions. The purpose of this recommendation is to provide an adequate buffer yard with screen between the historic resource and development that may be constructed around it. 2.3.3 Register property without integrity. Recommend the following: 2.3.3.1 If the resource is usable, it should be preserved in place. It may be used as it was originally used or adaptively used. When changes are made to the property, further loss of integrity should be avoided. Formulating Good Recommendations, June 2004 Prepared by Sympoeticq 6foodstock FW Page 3 2.3.3.2 If the resource is unusable and will be or has been demolished, the applicant should install an appropriate interpretive element to record the previous existence of the resource and to provide information to the public. 2.4 Property within a Frederick County HA overlay district: 2.4.1 Is the subject property an identified contributing resource in the district? 2.4.1.1. if yes, go to Section 2.4.2. 2.4.1.2 if no, go to Section 2.4.3. 2.4.2 Contributing Resources in. Frederick County HA overlay district: Issue or deny a certificate of appropriateness based on the following standards: 2.4.2.1 The resource shall be preserved in place. The resource may be used as it was originally used or adaptively reused as long as its historic or archeological value is maintained. 2.4.2.2 Any treatment of the buildings or structures, including exterior alterations and additions, shall meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings (See Section 5). The HRAB shall also consider the following per Section 165-125 C. of the Zoning Ordinance: - The extent to which the proposed action will. affect the overall character and continuity of the area; - Whether elements of the general design, such as scale, height and proportion of the proposed work are visually _compatible with the surrounding area; -__ Whether the texture and materials proposed are compatible with existing structures in theret4µ - 2.4.2.3 If the land associated with the resourec ontributes to its significance and maintains integrity, then the land area contributing to the resource shall be subject to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. Any new construction proposed on the land shall be subject to the standards of Section 2.4.4. 2.4.2.4 If the land originally associated with the resource has lost its integrity, then any new construction proposed on the land shall be subject to the standards of Section 2.4.4. 2.4.2.5 The FEZAB shall consider the following regarding any proposal for demolition of a contributing structure as specified in Section 165- 125 E. of the Zoning Ordinance: - Would the removal be detrimental to the public interest? - Could the building only be reproduced at great expense or difficulty due to its unique or unusual texture, material or design? - Would demolition of the structure result in the loss of a significant historic place in Frederick County? 2.4.3 Non-contributing resources in an HA overlay district: 2.4.3.1 If there is no building or structure oa the property, go to Section 2.4.4. Formulating Good Recommendations, June 2004 Prepared by Eympoeticq Woodstock VA Page 4 2.4.3.2 If there is a non-contributing building or structure on the property, the HRAB may issue or deny a certificate of appropriateness based on the compatibility of the proposed action with the historic, cultural and/or architectural aspects of the district. Issues to be considered include: - height, size and proportion of additions in relation to the subject building and adjacent buildings; - style and materials of roof; windows, and doors compatible with those of the subject building; - materials, colors and design of proposed changes in relation to those of the subject building; - sign size, material and style compatible with those in the district. 2.4.4 New congtrUction in an HA overlay district. Issue or deny a certificate of appropriateness based on the following standards: 2.4.4.1 The proposed construction is compatible with the historic, cultural and/or architectural aspects of the district: - height, size and proportion of new construction in relation to the adjacent buildings; - style and materials of roof, windows, and doors compatible with those of adjacent buildings; - materials, colors and design of proposed new construction in relation to those of adjacent buildings_ - sign size, material and style compatible with those in the district; __ . - site g compatible with existing development patterns in_the_ district; -- --- --> - other issues listed in -Section 5.2. 2-5 Resource in a historic area, but not an HA overlay district, or resource on a battlefield or battlefield site. 2.5.1 Is the land in a historic area, but not a battlefield or battlefield site? 2.5.1.1 If yes, go to Section 2.5.2. 2.5.1.2 If no, the site is on a battlefield or battlefield site, go to Section 2.5.3. 2.5.2 Is the subject property an identified contributing resource in the district? 2.5.2.1 If yes, go to Section 2.5.4. 2.5.2.2 If no, go to Section 2.5.5. 2.5.3 Resource on a battlefield or battlefield site Recommend the following: 2.5.3.1 The applicant should contact the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation to see if SVBF would be interested in purchasing the property. If the SVBF is interested or knows another non-profit battlefield or historic preservation organization that is interested, then the HRAB recommends the applicant consider selling to one of these organizations. Also recommend one of the following: 2.5.3.2 If there are specific recommendations for the resource/property in the applicable battlefield plan, use those for HRAB recommendations. 2.5.3.3 If the plan contains ranking system for battlefield properties, use that ranking system to determine the value of the resource/property for Formulating Good Recommendations, June 2004 Prepared by Sympoeticq Woodstock., K4 Page 5 preservation. If the property has a high value or contains buildings or structures significant to the battle or Civil War event/use and its current integrity is moderate or high, follow the recommendations for register properties with high integrity. See Section 2.3.2. 2.5.3.4 If the resource/property does not fall under 2.5.3.2 or 2.5.3.3, follow the recommendations for register properties with little integrity. See Section 2.3.3. 2.5.4 Contributing resource in historic area Recommend the following: 2.5.4.1 The resource should be preserved in place. The resource may be used as it was originally used or adaptively reused as long as its historic or archeological value is maintained-. 2.5.4.2 Any treatment of the buildings or structures, including exterior alterations and additions, should meet the Secretary of the Interior's; Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings (See Section 5)- 2-5.4.3 If compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards is not feasible, then the HRAP should make recommendations to ensure that: - The proposed action will not adversely affect the overall character and continuity of the area; - The elements of the general design, such as scale, height and proportion of the proposed work are visually compatible with the surrounding area; - The texture and materials proposed are compatible with existing structures in the area; other -applicable -issues -in Section 52 are- 2-5-4.4 re2.5.4.4 If the structure is to be demolished and/or if new construction is to = occur on the property; the B -should -mak ecomr dations to -_: ensure that: - the height, size and proportion of new construction are compatible with adjacent buildings or other buildings representative of the historic area; - the style and materials of roof, windows, and doors are compatible with those of adjacent buildings or other buildings representative of the historic area; - materials, colors and design of proposed new construction are compatible with those of adjacent buildings or other buildings representative of the historic area; - sign size, material and style are compatible with those in the historic area; - site planning is compatible with existing development patterns in the historic area; - site and building lighting is designed so that light leakage off site is prevented; - other applicable issues in Section 5.2 are addressed. Formulating Good Recommendations, June 2004 Prepared l y Sympoeticq TMOOdstock, VA Page 6 2.5.5 Nora -contributing resource in historic area.. Recommend the following: 2.5.5.1 If the structure is to be retained, - the height, size and proportion of additions are compatible with the subject building and adjacent buildings; = the style and materials ofroo� windows, and doors are compatible with those of the subject building; - the materials, colors and design of proposed changes are compatible with those of the subject building; - sign size, material and style are compatible with those in the district. 2.5.5.2 If the structure is to be demolished and/or new corstr-uction is to occur on the property, use the recommendations of Section 2.5.4.4. 2.6 .All other properties with historic or archeological resources. 2.6.1 What is the integrity of the resource? 2.6.1.1 The resource has moderate to high integrity and is worthy of preservation. Go to 2.6.2. 2.6.1.2 The resource has been so damaged tl,:t it is no longer essential_ to preserve it. Go to 2-6.3- 2.6-2 Properties containing historic or archeological resources with integrity. Recommend the following: 2.6.2.1 The resource should be preserved in place. The resource may be used as it was originally used or adaptively reused as long as its historic or archeological value is maintained. __. 2.6.2.2 An treatment Qf fi ,;ldings�r> =s- should meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings. Go to -Section -- 2.6.2-3 o Sectiones2.6.2.3 If the Secretary of the -Interior's Standards cannot be met, then the HR.AB should recommend the following: - the height, size and proportion of additions should be compatible with the subject building; - the style and materials of root windows, and doors should be similar to those of the building's historic period; - the materials, colors and design ofproposed changes should be similar to those of the historic period or otherwise compatible with those of the subject building; - other applicable issues in Section 5.2 are addressed. 2.6.2.4 The historic resource should be incorporated into the theme of the development. 2.6.3 Properties containing historic or archeological resources without integrity. Recommend the following: 2.6.3.1 If the resource is usable, it should be preserved in place. It may be used as it was originally used or adaptively used. When changes are made to the property, further loss of integrity should be avoided. 2.6.3.2 If the resource is unusable and will be or has been demolished, the applicant should install an appropriate interpretive element to record the previous existence of the resource and to provide information to the public. Formulating Good Recommendations, June 2009 Prepared by Sympoeticq Woodstock V4 Page 7 3. No historic or archeologieai resource is located on the property, but the property is located in an identified historic area. In what kind of historic area is the property located? 3.1 If the property is located in an HA overlay district, .follow the recommendations for new construction in Section 2.4.4. 3.2 If the property is located on a battlefield or battlefield site, follow the recommendations in Sections 2.5-3. and 2-5.4.4. 3.3 If the property is located in another type of identified historic area, such as a district identified in the Rural Land=ks Survey Report for Frederick County or recommended by staff of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, follow the recommendations for new construction in Section 2.5.4.4. 4. There is no known resource on the property, but resovrees are found on an adjacent property or a property within the immediate viewshed Is there sufficient room on the subject property and the subject property abuts the adjacent historic property on the side or rear? 4.1 If yes, the applicant should provide a landscape or full screen and buffer in the area of the subject property visible from the adjacent resource as specified in Section 165-37 D., Category C. Fences and walls provided for screening should be of a type that reflects the period of significance for the historic resource. The I RAR may modify this recommendation to respond to specif c site conditions. The purpose of this recommendation is to provide an .adequate buffer yard with —�—�reca-between the d.evelopment prop and the hist�a se-Urce. 4.2 If no, the subject property is small and does not have sufficient room for a screen -and-;brffer as=specified_in 4.(e=_; inL. n-coL sr�bject properly_. faces the historic property across the street (Le., front yard faces front yard), then recommend the following. 4-2.1 A narrower buffer yard with triple row of evergreen trees (at least 6 feet talll, at planting) is recommended along side and rear yards adjacent to the historic property, or; 4.2.2 The applicant should meet the standards of Section 2.5.4.4 regarding new construction, where compatibility is with the adjacent historic resource. Formulating Good Recommendations, June 2004 Prepared by Sympoetica Woodstock VA Page 8 5. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Rehabilitation of ?toric BuRdings 5.1 The following are the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for application by the BRA13: 5.1.1 "A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. - 5. 1 nvironment."5.1.2 "ThP historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided." 5.1.3 "Each property shall 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 architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken." 5.1.4 "Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved." 5.1.5 "Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved_" 5.1.6 `Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. There the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials_ Replacement features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, orpictorial evidence." "Chemical or physical treatments sucbM sandblasting _ ,that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used The surface cleaning of structures if appropriate, _shall be undertaken usiahe„gentlest means passible.” 5.1.9 "Significant archaeological resources affected by a prodect shall be - protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken_" 5.1.9 "New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment." 5.1.10 `flew additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired." Formulating Good Recommendations, June 2004 Prepared by Sympoeticr� Woodstock, VA page 9 5.2 Issues to consider in determining whether the Secretary's standards are being met; - Massing (shape and volume) of additions and new construction - Pro rtion (relationship between elements with respect to size and/or quality), e.g. number and size of windows and doors in walls, height -to -width ratio of buildings, ratio of ornamental features or signs to the budding facade. - Scale (correlation between a structure and fhe human body). Scale can be monumental or human. Consider predominant or compatible scale for additions and new eonstm iori. - Rhythm- (regular occurrence of building elements along an elevation) and Balance (overall harmonious arrangement of architectural elements) of additions and new construction - Roof Form. and Pitch - Building Colors - Building Materials. Historic or appropriate substitute materials (See National Park Service Brief 416: The Use of Substitute Materials on Historic Building Exteriors and Brief # 8. 41uminum and Vinyl Siding on Historic Buildings) - Foundations - walls - Roofs - Doors - Windows - Shutters & Awnings ` - Wall Features (e.g-, belt courses, columns, corner boards, projecting bays) -- --- - Light Fixtur_-s�-Iight.-Ieak-age oft site to be preve - Roof Features (e.g., bargeboards, dentils, brackets, dormers, chimneys) - -=LiP he _, .. Ramps and I]ec�s = — - ' -Storefronts (style, composition, window/door placement, signs, awnings) S (style, size, placement, li bring, materials) Landscaping Landsca e Walls and Fences - Street Lighting - Satellite Dishes Mechanical and Electrical L ui ment DpWsters (Screening with appropriate landscape materials, walls or fences) Parking (location, paving materials, landscaping). Parking should be designed so as to minimize intrusion into the historic landscape. Formulating Good Recommendations, Jame 2004 Prepared by Sympoetica, Woodstock VAI Page 10