The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19920826AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE AUGUST 26, 1992 REGULAR MEETING F THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD IN THE BOCC ROOM AT THE COUNTY COURT' HOUSE 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of July 8th, July 22nd, and August 12, 1992 minutes. II. Committee and Staff Comments III. Public Comments IV. OLD BUSINESS 0. (.:y - luÂ·F.c Â£,4 0< J<Â£%0+1~> c} c B (2~ i> , - 5:15 A. 134 E. Bleeker Minor Development and variations V. NEW BUSINESS A. None VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Sub Committee Reports B. Project Monitoring VII. Adjourn 4 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 134 E. Bleeker: Minor Development and Height and sideyard variations - Public Hearing Date: August 26, 1992 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting HPC approval for a height variation for the outbuilding, necessary due to the need to overframe the roof to retain the interior historic integrity. Additionally, a 9x12' deck off the second floor of the outbuilding (ADU) is now being requested, and a sideyard setback variation is necessary to accomplish this. other minor design changes are occurring to the principal structure, which staff and the project monitors have reviewed and approved. HPC feedback is also sought for these. APPLICANT: Susan and Paul Penn, represented by Jake Vickery of Bill Poss and Associates. LOCATION: 134 E. Bleeker, Lot S and the Easterly 15 feet of Lot R, Block 65, Townsite of Aspen, Colorado DISCUSSION: In a previous review memo from staff, the idea of a deck off the outbuilding's second floor was discussed as something the Housing Authority desired to see, in order to help make the ADU more livable. Staff did not support this concept due to the impact such an addition would have to the historic form of the outbuilding. However, after meeting with the project architect and the project monitors, we feel that a small (9x12') balcony/deck, reversible in nature, and attached to the least visible side of the outbuilding (and centered), may meet the Development Review Standards. Staff recommends that the HPC approve this design alteration, and make the following finding, according to Development Review Standard 7-601(D)(1)(a): 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot of exceed the allowed floor areas, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the 1 historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. We also recommend approval for the height variation, which the HPC is allowed to approve for "Cottage Infill" dwelling units (deed restricted accessory dwelling units) per Ordinance 60, Series of 1990. The R-6 zone district restricts structures located on the rear 1/3 portion of the parcel to 12' at the median point: the outbuilding is 1 1/2 stories (historically), which is non- conforming. The overframing proposal increases the existing non- conformity, creating the need for an HPC approval for the height variation. Staff finds that the design changes proposed to the principal structure meet the Development Review Standards, and recommend that the HPC approve them, as follows: Enlarging the Master Deck (on the addition) from 3'6" to 5', and eliminating the small surrounding roof overhang Revising the railing design for this deck Revision to the master bath skylight (on the addition), necessary to solve the roof drainage problems originally proposed Thinner elements designed for addition, as recommended in the Final approval (narrower column design, thinner window and door mullions and knife-edged facia) Original siding will be retained and used on the outbuilding where possible; new siding (rough side out) will be used as needed, stained to the same color and intensity ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approval as proposed, finding the Development Review standards have been met, and finding that the sideyard setback is more compatible in character with the designated landmark than would be in accord with dimensional requirements, and granting the height variation for the carriage house. 2) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain again, to allow the applicant time to revise the proposal in order to meet the Development Review standards. 3) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. 2 1 1./IL ANâ‚¬.er/A ' 1 --- 26% 0 E lilf ~1+~~~~ 1 Mched -20=14 -7 - 1- 1-* ..h 1 A i Â·_-410999-- -\ ! 1 \. ,-3. . 2 /. . C. 11,07.-5~~~. E ill -i ! f i --2<WDE \ 1 4~ 1 1 1 (., -0441 M 'i ~ 3 2HM Â·-/Â» le)41/// 1 I 134*21 ' / i ordÂ«k . t- -- i E ne 1 0424 i - I 'll 4 5/0041 N 1/%6 -1 9 6 L 0:30 e-i JEE. evzklki ~ : @7 19Â·924 /v\91% , t L t Z I -+ 1 t 1 ..3 11 / 1 - 7 1 li // 4 b 1 1.- ::1 -L~Lia-Pi --7 1 j =fi i'' , . 1 42 - 91 1 ' 9 a .HI 11 1 1 C to ' -4-> r g,4 A0404 .: ' . 11 7.*rF , 0 U | />40 ri 1 - 14 - /,li 0/ I - 24' 11 1 0 - - - | ' I. 1 1 -- f#th*angÂ».9 1-15Â·'ezl-L~ f- g# i i -3.J=}Gr:r __=~IN -9 al:72,=71234 , -41-7Â» ./ A - L&261:Lagajqi/.- l'ili h 1 1 fill I \ \114 4/1 \\ 42 E-----1.Il~ 3 1 1.\ \ m 1 1 4 11 1 \\ 9. i 1/r i -t i. lf,At' 1. :i,I / i f F.K 'tr'U} 14Â¢=vv Â·rze/i' 1 . Oil-614.,TU 'Ad / 1 I 1-1 i T 1 1 fIiI i !1 1 11! 1 .~ h 1 'it /2 1 1 i lili' i ill - /1 JUL 3 0 1992 itf_23 7~0 ~i6Â»H_-_bÂ»613 -*;Ed__w,CeÂ£~t:9*c:~ Â·j~oeaÂ£- ~90= 21*+ 129,4 j 0 .Akate *dfo#,00- - 1...c=mâ€¢.1 Ne ~.,9. -- Â»514 *AtE;A) Ce 11 31'+ 'Lol' dalÂ£ FoeR +~AD ~ 1. 5 l -9-z-- 4RV. Bl I hâ‚¬F----330*" fly / 1 f.' 1 f 1 1 l*' l V Â» 4 \N : ~:'44. 24./ 1 * # r / 1 l " 1 1 , \2<\ 1, 1, 0/ 2 1 ?1 /Of \\ 1 \ \\ Bew 14 s // -1. I t. \ P: i' \Â»A Q-*b~Â· 3 \'\ Â» 64*CftkY\A' 4 09 1 B 1: \6x *veelpepe' 41 & : NX 1:5'1 11 1 1 N '1 \.\ /b/ \4â‚¬X /1/ t.u 111 31 - 10 :. 4 2/9 4% 142.16 lilli /12 lilli 131 ....1-,:7*97'ae = .+4 :r \ /27 . 1\ '%. Xhi -14 7 4 ". 1.,1 ' . -- 3,5..1 ... / d.6.. / ~1 /, 2.\ t..9.11 ,/71 Li f ./4 Ni ./3 2- 1/ F 11-1. 1 / r / - 4 Vi:.idn Ld *411 N Vt- .,11 -,1,44 1.-..â€ž*I EM, Wf*Â·. Â·54/*r JIT&,1 N Ze*~nuu,1 4, pal gr|-ant|~17 2 1Â»*F~''ll 45/ //////Â©2414:23rt 4221:r Nâ€¢Â£/, 4 1,#M f / Â«PI-4 Ollt [2& / ,-1-=1 1 "tr:M=Â¥Ecy,7.41'w.-R,11 20 -re' ek'AIH - \ / =2*3Â« / Cl--Â»1-1 *284 12- %31 / 91=Â»1+-1 JUL 3 0 1992 12.0 . \ pÂ»FDS*rp 'til rmA = 1. . #X 191'4 21152fi e- , 13" 4 -tr I a><ler '4 6 -tic:14. 1 i -1 /1.49 1 ~'2~ Â«]or . 7 -[22 FiE,Â¢46- 1 14 ! / M *3 406 1% 1 11 11 . \41 11 â‚¬ ir ' '1 6,1â‚¬714 \11 XXX 1 $ 11 '1 i i !11, I Â»4 1 .. 1 1/1 Hiz.>aj \\31 i / ... D /4: r r--Â«feeÂ·-Â·.-PFF.+ Â·Â·--r * 4 '. 04 44*46 NataM;151% JUL 3 0 1992 fÂ»114 :134Â» Itz*4-kÂ»- _3--6/- 11 =REd{-1.4,~,1-1 -1.da:p, 21 LE:601/114-, \-j \ \\ 401*978*99Â») 4 .t~ 4,Hyddepu' A-4 'A, 19 910911- /1 -1-1-4:42. .-4-HO UPÂ«91Â«- 5(31 VÂ«dagiebo : aCaf- ~ris-10_*_3 6-_1--99% H t.qgb:4------ - 1 -g-~idpv-tVjW - ,&.,16.p*)dik::6.4.Ek/bA ri~Â¥E, '1 Ii- t.- - 1 A 2,1 91 1. : li m .- 7167 1 - , 6 .3 ...9 2 Â¢ /1,-/ r 4 ; -J' i 2661 0 E 1Af i i 1 494 Â«\ 9412204= 1 r#42#14 --- 41Â»beg t-- .....= illl , 1. 1 H \ i *r rz,1 : \ \ 1 31* >60 - - - - - - \ - , . 1 - 1 1. r- + "N : re 09,65-zzi -1&~Re~ 1 - 5, 1,4*~14.zt+Mi~~ 12-2 />MaH C:,ea,A=6:tul / ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM Project Name Penn Residence 2) Project Location 134 East Bleeker; Lot S Easterly 15 feet of Lot R, Blo 65, Township 10 South, Range 84 West Section 7, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado 3) Present Zoning R-6 4) Lot Size 4,500 sf Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Susan and Paul Penn, 9505 Coplev Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana (w) (317)873-5211; (h) (317)844-4734. u Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Bill Poss and Associates 605 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Contact: Jake Vickerv ) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historic Development Special Review - Final SPA X Final Historic Development 8040 Greenline - Conceptual PUD Minor Historic Development Stream Margin - Final PUD Historic Designation Mountain View Plan Subdivision GMQS Allotment Condominiumization - Text/Map Amendment - GMQS Exemption Lot Split/ Lot Line Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; approximate sq ft; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property). Existing 1 1/2 story, 1 bath 1065 s.f. residence, wood frame, 3 bedroom Existing 1 1/2 story carriage barn 726 s.f. Accessory building, wood frame : Description of Development Application Application for demolition of 132 s.f. existing 1 storv kitchen and 180 s.f. internal second floor over new library and addition of approx. 1476 FAR s.f. 10) Have you attached the following? See Conceptual Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents Yes Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents See Conceptual Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for your Application AMENDMENT TO HPC SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL JULY 31, 1992 PENN RESIDENCE 134 EAST BLEEKER ASPEN, COLORADO Attached herein are the following revisions to the previously approved development application for the Penn Residence, 134 East Bleeker, HPC Significant Review: 1. Application Form: Copy of original amended to include new requested variations to increase the height of the carriage barn by no more than 12" and a deck off the carriage barn intruding no more than 2 feet into the rear yard setback. 2. Conceptual Review Minimum Submission Contents: Items 1-4: On file, no change, consistent with previous applications. Item 5: see attached letter dated 7-30-92; In general, the proposed changes clarify and simplify the previously approved design and solve practical problems of its construction and use. 5A: The increase in height of the carriage barn allows the existing structure to remain in tact and to be restored and exposed on the interior. The intrusion of the minimally sized deck into the rear yard setback allows the deck to be centered on the West elevation, as per monitor and staff recommendation. Development according to dimensional requirements would preclude these improvements. 5B - 5D: On file, no change, consistent with previous applications. 3A. Final Review Specific Submission Contents: Items 1-4: On file, no change, consistent with previous applications. 3B. Specific Submission Contents: Items 1 & 2: see attached materials specifications, details and drawings. Item 3: see letter dated 7-30-92 Item 4: see letter dated 7-30-92 5. Proof of posting and mailing will be presented at the meeting. this requires a variance form HPC. This deck was requested by the Housing Authority and the Planning Department in order to add livability to the DADU. The deck has been reduced to 9' x 12' from 9' x 18', which we feel is a minimal useable size. It is a light weight structure, easily reversible, which has the potential of adding life to the alley. The variance is requested so that the deck can be centered under the existing ridge which the Monitors felt was preferable to being offset. A pair of french door replaces the pair of windows previously approved on the West elevation of the barn. 3. ARCHITECTURAL REVISIONS TO THE NEW ADDITIONS. There are four revisions as follows: (please refer to drawings) A. Enlarging the Master Deck width from 3'-6'to 5'-0" and eliminating the small surrounding roof overhang. A revised design for the deck and rail is shown on the drawing. B. Revision to the Master Bath Skylight as per drawings. This is on the concealed part of the addition. This is a necessity to solve roof drainage problems. C. The architectural detailing of the front and rear elevations has been simplified and made more consistent, thinner, and more clearly a new element related to the old. This includes a knife edged-facia, revised column design, narrower style wood window and door treatments. D. Much of the siding of the existing carriage barn will need to be replaced. We will use siding similar to the old, rough side out, stained to the same color and intensity as the existing. E. Fence details as per drawings. Sincerely 4;ld i W Jake Vickery Project Architect Enclosures and associates 0.9-7,21 L 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303/925-4755 FACSIMILE 303/920-2950 July 30, 1992 Roxanne Elfin Historical Preservation Commission Aspen Planning Department 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Design Revisions to 134 East Bleeker, Penn Residence Dear Roxanne: Following our work session on July 22, this letter is to summarize and itemize proposed design revisions to 134 E. Bleeker, the Penn Residence, and to request corresponding amendments to the Significant Review Approval for this project. Further detail design development and new information regarding the construction of the existing structures has necessitate these changes. We also feel that these changes refine and complement the design previously approved, as well as improving responsiveness to the HPC standards. The proposed revisions are as follows: 1. OVERFRAMING OF THE EXISTING CARRIAGE BARN ROOF HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 12" ABOVE THE EXISTING RIDGE. This requires a variance from HPC. Alterations to the existing roof required by the structural engineer would mean a virtual replacing of the existing roof structure. To avoid this we propose to place the new framing on top of the old thereby leaving the old in tact and allowing the existing interior to be restored and exposed. We are asking for a height increase of only 12", the minimum to accomplish this overframing. 2. ADDITION OF A 9' X 12' DECK AT THE UPPER LEVEL CENTERED ON THE WEST WALL OF THE EXISTING CARRIAGE BARN. Because this deck intrudes slightly, less than 2 feet, into the rear yard setback, 1.-0- - 9 and associates r RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC grant Minor Development approval for the revised proposal at 134 E. Bleeker St., finding that the side yard setback variation is more compatible to the historic landmark than would be in accord with underlying dimensional requirements, and approving the height variation for the carriage house ADU. memo.hpc.134eb.cd.3 3 - -- i.-- - ! r \ I--1-4 1 19 4 1 ' Ii, 1 ~111 11 111-Â¢=FE- 719.1-771,-hPLEJ 1-20 - .L..,f/,,f~~ZZL~~~ 4 :1 4 :i .: 4 11 i; i: :i I, â€žL . ----- 11. -1 Â·. â€¢, 1 1,057 ."I 11 W 1 -~ 11 i!'!in 1 77[ r[-E l. ~tilf \\\ 4. 97 1 Ill lili 1,:'i /"ll li 1.11 1 ij illi 4101'llr 11 li! : lili: 4,1 h Ill 1 i - 91 1 10 0 12.174 6 Â· 1. 9 2- 3*rl . .1 4 \93%4\ i 4 /941 1 jile<#ZEE:~rl.- 1 71# :1 'f l \\ 7 Â» 10 G E \\ 1 1/ \. r \Â«\\4:44 9 a \\ \31\L \\42 1 1 // \\ <ON.. f,41\ -0 q 41 1 \I I \ 11 0 ki-ke ;1 1 1Â« 1 0 1 // --Ch\ : lilli 1 11 1 t !' 4 ~ ~ ~ q " 4 71 4 ? 622# -FH A-Â»v . 6 ' 7 ' 1 2 mim - L * 4-4 -rp 0 1 --1 1 lilli 11.11 11: 11 ' 1 4 Fjjf fi 1 . 1-_Â£ _ 1 ~ Â· i ! 1 .EZ==-T---3 |! '-'i i El- 1111111111111 11 i ~ 11-~1 !:lilill: ' ;t!':Ill 1 1 -1 -11,_~1 *1.1 li lii:,117-r-nll.-i-1~1~ 3!il 1:111 '! r 1.t| 'i i 'f & i Â·111 i: 1 -1: :i .ip===1 1 1 1 ~ 11.11 4]U ] !! 111 1 ~ i i I. i 1 1 i . { i 1 : i , l' 1 ''li;li:1:' i i 1-4 i i i --' '1!1 44 011 9111.11 0141 L 11 .t:.11:1 ,1 1 111 11 111 lilli 1.11.11 1:111 1 j1ijiil;Ijll \6.153.(E,r' 5.l-42-\/-7 - I -7- - -- 3 ' 9 Â· 1 1 344 13 : 2 02 1 1 3-4 3 2 Ul Â»Il- 3 4 Â£ \1 b # & CE Â© 62 2 , 4 --- --= ii# . ! 1 ' 1 =r==27 - - -. + .-vr:-- *. 1 liu 1 11 It . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 lÂ·-Â·1Â·IÂ· Â· lil -'--Â· ' 1 .-. , 1 F t: 11 1 I vi~-i_--__-i~o ft-i~j~~~~41-:--~~fic_ ---~i-~i-i-L -4- 1 . I *884 .-10,6 . L. Cd ' la/134 '11,91â‚¬10 01 , N 49 11--t Surnrner 1990 Join the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Become part of the network of over one thousand landmark, historic district commission and boards of architectural review in the United States. The National Alliance is a network of local commissions organized to provide information and education to each other. As a member of the National Alliance you will not have to "re- invent the wheel" in your community. You can benefit from the ideas and experiences of local communities throughout the United States working to protect historic districts and landmarks through local legislation. Your membership in the National Alliance includes: LI The Alliance Review, a newsletter brimming with practical information for staff and members of local preservation commissions and review boards Ll Technical seminarsand conferences, special regionalevents, and an annual mectingand workshops for commissions held in conjunction with the National Trust for Historic Preservation's Annual Preservation Conference 1.1 A resource center of information used and developed by commissions across the country such as educational materials. forms, guidelines and ordinances Ll A voice for yourcommissioninWashington with the National ParksService, the National Trust for HistoricPreservation,The Advisory Counciloh Historic I'reservation,and theNationalConference of State Historic Preservation Officers. COMMISSION MEMBERSHIPS F-1 $10 Basic: Commissions with budget under $100 or communities less than 1000 population [-1 $25 Sustaining: Commissions with budget of $100-500 or communities of 1000-5000 population [~| $50 Supporting: Commissions with budget of $500-$5000 or communities of 5000-50,000 population El $100 Contributing: Commissions with budget over $5000 or communities over 50,000 population ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIPS C] $15 Subscription to Alliance Review ~ $25 Category for local non-profit organizations 1-1 $50 Category for regional or state non-profit organization [-1 $100 Category for national non-profit organization /state government / business / sponsoring associate Commissions have the option of having the ALLIANCE REVIEW mailed direct to their members for an addi- tional payment of $10 per name and address NAME OF COMMESION OR INDIVIDUAL ADDRESS CrrY STATE ZIP _ PHONE Return this form with payment to: NAPC MEMBERS<UP, HALL OF STATES, SurrE 332, 444 Norni CAFrrOL STREET, WASH[NGTON. D.C. 20001 The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Charleston, the birthplace in 1931 of the first historic district in the United States, is also the location where the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions (NAPC) formally adopted its articles of incorporation. Over a half a century separates the establishment of the Old and Historic Charleston District and the founding of the NAPC, a fifty year period during which the local preservation movement has come to full maturity. The spread of the Charleston concept to other communities was slow for a generation, but with the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966 and the constitutional validation of historic district regulation of the Supreme court in 1978 (Penn Central v. New York City), hundreds of communities throughout the U.S. established historic preservation commissions. The use of historic preservation commissions as a preservation tool received a further boost in 1980 when Congress passed amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act that, for the first time, provided direct federal assistance to communities that agreed to participate in the Certified Local Government program. By the early 1980s there were thousands of commission members and hundreds of professional commission staff who were dealing with similar problems of controlling development in historic areas. What was clearly absent was a forum for the discussion of mutual problems and a voice representing the particular needs of commissions. G. Bernard Callan, Chair of the Frederick, Maryland Historic Preservation Commission, took the lead in calling for an alliance of commissions throughout the U.S. Toward this end, commissions were invited to send representatives to Charleston in the spring of 1983 to discuss articles of incorporation, and those present formally voted to establish the NAPC. At this time, the Board of Directors of the NAPC adopted a four- fold strategy. First, it would build a strong organization by creating a membership base consisting of all the known historic preservation commissions. Second, it would seek visibility for the NAPC by developing a newsletter, The Alliance Review, for commissions. Third, it would establish workshops for commissions and arrange its annual meeting in conjunction with the annual National Historic Preservation Conference. Fourth, it would work with the Washington preservation establishment - the National Park Service, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Council Of State Historic Preservation officers, and Preservation Action - to gain support for efforts to assist the work of preservation commissions. Today, the NAPC continues to gain members and to be recognized as the voice of commissions. Its leadership continues to grow through the work of its founders as well as new members who are dedicating their energies to the work of making the voice of commissions heard. Its informative newsletter, The Alliance Review, is published quarterly, and each issue is dedicated to single preservation topics such as demolition by neglect, design guidelines, and preserving religious structures. TO join the NAPC, or for additional information, please write to: The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Hall of States, Suite 342 444 No. Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 or call Pratt Cassity, Executive Director, at (706) 542-4731. Responsibilities of a Certified Local Government â€¢ Maintain a historic preservation commission â€¢ Survey local historic properties â€¢ Enforce State or local preservation laws â€¢ Provide for public participation â€¢ Other functions delegated or required by the State, such as the enactment of historic preservation ordinances or zoning restrictions For further information on the National Park Service's preservation programs contact one of the following Regional Offices or the Washington Office. National Park Service P.O. Box 37127 Washington, DC 20013-7127 Office of Public Affairs: (202) 208-6843 Alaska Region 2525 Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99503 Public Information Office:(907) 257-2696 Mid-Atlantic Region 143 South Third Street Philadelphia, PA 1 9106 Public Information Office: (215) 597-3679 Rocky Mountain Region P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 Public Information Office (303) 969-2503 Southeast Region 75 Spring Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303 Public Information Office: (404) 331-4998 Western Region 600 Harrison Street Suite 600 Box 36063 San Francisco, CA 94107-1372 Public Information Office (415) 744-3929 404@4~ TAE=-Ill 4 United States Department of the Interior PRIDE Il- AAERICA I 3% - ,.1 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE P.O. Box 37127 -. Washington, D.C. 20013-7127 IN REPLY REFER TO: Information for Preservation Commissions The National Park Service's historic preservation programs--administered in five NPS Regions across the United States and in the Washington Office--provide a variety of historic preservation services for the States and Territories, Federal agencies, Indian tribes, local governments, and the general public. In addition to setting Standards for all aspects of preservation, from research and documentation to rehabilitation, the National Park Service administers the National Register of Historic Places, the Historic Preservation Fund grants-in-aid program, the Preservation Tax Incentives program, the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record, and the Archeological Assistance program. The Service also publishes and distributes technical information on preservation. Of particular interest to local preservation commissions is the Certified Local Government program jointly administered by the National Park Service and State Historic Preservation Offices. The National Historic Preservation Act established a nationwide program of financial and technical assistance to preserve historic properties--buildings, structures, neighborhoods, and other places of importance in the historic and cultural life of the nation. A local government can participate directly in this program when the State Historic Preservation Officer certifies that the local government has established its own historic preservation commission and a program meeting Federal and State standards. A local government that receives such certification is known as a "Certified Local Government" or CLG. State Historic Preservation Offices began certifying local governments in 1985. Currently, every State has at least one CLG and the nationwide total exceeds 700. Benefits of Becoming a Certified Local Government â€¢ Special grants from State Historic Preservation Offices â€¢ Local historic preservation expertise recognized by State and Federal agencies â€¢ Technical assistance and training from State Historic Preservation Offices â€¢ Participation in nominations to the National Register of Historic Places â€¢ National historic preservation assistance network including publications, professional assistance â€¢ Information exchange with State Historic Preservation Offices â€¢ Participation in statewide preservation programs and planning -Â·,reV=-402\ * Fiscal Incentives for Historic Preservation, by John E. Petersen and Susan G. Robinson. This 60-page report discusses the impact of preservation tax incentives on local government revenues. $15. + Preservation Planning and Growth Management in Four States: Oregon. Virginia New Jersey. Rhode Island, by Constance E. Beaumont and A Bruce Dotson. This report explains the links between historic preservation and growth management and analyzes land-use planning frameworks in four states insofar as they affect preservation. $15. Rescuing Historic Resources: How to Respond to a Preservation Emergency, by Grace E. Gary. Information Sheet No. 51, this paper outlines the steps to take when a local community landmark is endangered. $5. America's Downtowns: Growth. Politics and Preservation, by Richard C. Collins, Elizabeth B. Waters, and A Bruce Dotson. This 159-page book analyzes the downtown planning efforts of 10 cities from the historic preservation perspective. The case studies focus on Atlanta, Boston, Cincinnati, Denver, Jersey City, Philadelphia, Roanoke, San Francisco, Seattle and St. Paul. $14.95. Send publication orders to: Center for Preservation Policy Studies, National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: 202/673-4255 (Fax: 202/673-4038) JOIN US IN MIAMI Come to Miami between October 7-11, 1992 to join preservationists from around the country at tbe 46th Annual Preservation Conference! The:program will include a mock commission hearing and sessions on private property rights, design guidelines, state and local preservation incentives, growth management, historic easements, Americans with Disabilities Act, the National Register of Historic Places and other topics of interest. The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions will hold its meeting October 10 in Miami. For a brochure on the conference, call 1-800-937-6847. ***** The mission of the National Trust for Historic Preservation is to foster an appreciation of the diverse character and meaning of our American cultural heritage and to preserve and revitalize the livability of our communities by leading the nation in saving America's historic environments. The Trust is a congressionally-chartered, nonprofit organization with app,oximately 250,000 members nationwide. National Trust for Historic Preservation INFORMATION RESOURCES iri11- Listed below are publications available from the National Trust for Historic Preservation relating specifically to historic preservation law and local preservation commissions. â€¢ The Economics of Rehabilitation, by Donovan D. Rypkema. This Information Sheet No. 53 explains how preservationists can demonstrate the economic benefits of preserving historic buildings in their communities. $5. â€¢ Preservation L.aw Reporter. Edited by Julia H. Miller, this monthly publication covers preservation-related court decisions, tax rulings, state and local legislation and other topics. Subscription price: $90 a year. ($50 for National Trust Forum members and local preservation commissions) â€¢ The Economic Benefits of Preserving Community Character: A Practical Methodology, by the Government Finance Research Center. This publication explains how to evaluate the economic impacts -- jobs, tax revenues, etc. -- of historic preservation on local communities. Also available are two case studies in which the methodology was used to assess the economic impacts of preservation programs in Fredericksburg, Va., and Galveston, Tx. $25 for the methodology; $10 for each of the case studies. â€¢ Responding to the Takings Challenge, by Richard J. Roddewig and Christopher J. Duerksen. Co-published by the National Trust and the American Planning Association, this 40-page publication explains the implications for historic preservation of the three land-use decisions rendered by the U. S. Supreme Court in 1987. It also discusses the importance of following proper administrative procedures to avoid lawsuits in the takings area. $20. A Citizen's Guide to Protecting Historic Places: Local Preservation Ordinances, by Constance E. Beaumont. This 21-page booklet offers guidance on the basic elements of a local preservation ordinance and discusses the public benefits of historic preservation. $5. + State Tax Incentives for Historic Preservation: A State-by-State Summary, by Constance E. Beaumont. This 18-page publication offers brief summaries of preservation tax incentives on a state-by-state basis. $4. + Local Incentives for Historic Preservation, by Constance E. Beaumont. This 20- page technical bulletin gives examples of local preservation incentives. $4. 2Â»i UNITED STATES PRESERVATION COMMISSION IDENTIFICATION PROJECT Breakdown of Number of Historic Preservation Commissions by State 3/92 1218 12-LE 1211 119-2 Alabama 6 7 12 7 Alaska 0 2 3 10 Arizona 6 8 12 13 Arkansas 3 4 6 7 California 30 44 55 41 Colorado 12 12 14 22 Connecticut 38 40 51 70 Delaware 4 4 5 6 D.C. 1 1 1 3 Florida 12 12 20 39 Genrgia 7 9 15 57 Hawaii 0 0 1 2 Idaho 1 1 5 28 Illinois 21 22 29 63 Indiana 5 5 12 25 Iowa 0 0 5 76 Kansas 2 2 3 7 Kentucky 6 6 7 28 Louisiana 3 3 5 14 Maine 1 3 5 16 Maryland 18 21 30 39 Massachusens 59 63 84 135 Michigan 9 18 43 63 Minnesota 9 12 15 32 Mississippi 11 32 2 2 7 12 Missouri 11 12 Montana 0 0 4 13 Nebraska 1 1 2 2 Nevada 2 2 2 6 New Hampshire 28 28 28 59 New Jersey 6 12 14 38 57 New Mexico 4 4 5 New York 22 42 45 134 Nonh Carolina 20 20 44 67 North Dakota 4 Ohio 13 16 19 79 Oklahoma 3 3 4 11 Chegon 4 7 13 31 Pennsylvania 29 32 47 70 Rhode Island 8 10 10 17 South Carolina 7 7 7 22 South Dakota 2 2 2 13 Tennessee 8 9 15 31 Texas 11 12 21 49 Utah 1 1 3 48 Vermont 6 8 9 24 Virginia 17 19 26 58 Washington 9 9 11 40 West Virginia 4 4 10 55 Wisconsin 15 15 21 47 Wyoming 13 492 578 832 1803 We would also like to take this opportunity to cordially invite you to attend the 46th National Preservation Conference, which will take place October 'All in Miami, Florida This event offers a wonderful opportunity for you to meet fellow preservation commission members from around the country. Details on the conference will be mailed to you soon. This is an exciting and challenging time for preservation in the United States. The National Historic Preservation Program, administered by the National Park Service and State Historic Preservation Offices, bolstered by the work of the National Trust, the National Alliance, other national, state and local nonprofit organizations and government agencies, and by the millions of hardworking residents, caretakers and owners of historic properties across the country, is making a difference. We want to thank you for your contribution to nationwide efforts to improve the quality of our communities through preservation, and we urge you to communicate with us and each other often. Sincerely, Akiki c Q.126Â£11 ~~~(#b* *4 Peter H. Brink Stdphen A Morris Pratt Cassity Vice President, Programs, CLG Coordinator Executive Director Services & Information National Park Service National Alliance of National Trust for Historic Preservation Commissions Preservation Enclosures -=wac!:PGS- ,~ NATIONAL .1. ill PARK National Trust for lt..LL Historic Preservation August 7, 1992 Dear Historic Preservation Commissioner: The National Park Service, National Trust for Historic Preservation and the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions are committed to helping the local historic preservation commission, the front line of America's preservation movement, to protect and enhance the nation's historic resources. In the interest of facilitating better communication and information sharing among local commissions, we want to take this opportunity to contact you using our new master list of the nation's 1,803 historic preservation commissions. This list was produced through the United States Preservation Commission Identification Project, cosponsored by our three organizations. Requests for commission names and contacts were published in several preservation publications and each State Historic Preservation Office and nonprofit statewide preservation organization was contacted. The information was then compiled into a master list. The number of commissions identified in each state is shown on the enclosed chart. Note that since 1981 the number of commissions has increased from 832 to 1,803 -- an increase of 117 percent! We ask that you take a moment to help us confirm the accuracy of the list by completing and returning the enclosed post card. Your response will help ensure that the new list is accurate and current and that mailings to local preservation commissions from our organizations and other preservation groups around the country reach commission members and staff. The list will be continuously updated. Please notify Pratt Cassity at the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions, c/o Historic Preservation Program, 609 Caldwell Hall, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, if your address, contact person or commission status change. A hard copy of the list of commissions is available from the National Alliance at the above address or from the National Trust, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. A fee of $10 covers the costs of production, postage and handling. We will begin soon to explore the similarities and differences between all the identified commissions as we launch Phase II of the US Commission Identification Project. This will be the first statistical information compiled on all historic preservation commissions. Information on the major issues confronting commissions and on their approaches to common problems will enable us to address your needs. (over, please) 1 TINY OLD/HOUSE LIVING IN ... e 11 0 CalÂ©ins, CÂ©iiages, and o o 17 laniaturÂ© 31-an-sions ".. 40*'4557"~2'./9' 9%4if,- ~~t/: uuÂ· .3 1, - 1.E LT- 44...li /1 ~ Bl-> W --U ueen Annes, Italianates, and other large, amply chambered old houses get plenty of I - attention in books and magazines, but whatabout the old houses no bigger than a single room? Tiny houses, which can be defined as dwellings under 500 square feet, dot the landscape from coast to coast. To find out more about these diminutive domiciles, back in IggI we asked readers to send in their photos of tiny old houses and stories j about what old-house living is like surrounded by only four walls. (Trom lÂ¢t to *60 Ibree historic tiny old houses: A replica ?f Tboreau's cabin on Walden Pond, the Children's \ Pl*ouse on the grounds of the Park-McCullough House, and Jefferson's Hon*moon Cottage at Monticello. Photos ([dt to righÂ¢ courtes~ 4 th, Tberial Swiny, Park-MfC:illoigh HouseÂ· 5~ S Ei>TEM B 1â‚¬R â€¢ OCTOBF.R 1 992 [bomas Irfferson Memer.,1 1-0.â€žd.!m. bir i -1 -0 --1.-*.. 1 i -- 4,/~*2*M-;I~ . I c-- r--yo 32<-. 342*.1-I.--SY+*.6---IX.. * L r ' 1---7:--,/515.f.--r t, 1 4 1 1.# 7 1 1.- y; 4â€¢Â·Â·07*Â· Â· , 7 tvjITft#fp 'J i The history of tiny Throwgbout tlyree seasons, we devoted two dojs Of eveg week to tbe houses can be traced back restoration until our cabin, sporting a new 700, wasjinished. i to North America's earli- 1 est settlers, when one- Honeymoon Cottage, which later became a -~ 0, room, post-and-beam kitchen/schoolroom. Other tiny dwellings were built out i i ~ buildings were quickly of a desire for simplicity, such as Henry David Thoreau's I - 1Â£ constructed for shelter. famous small house on Walden Pond or the Campground ir --~----~~-'- i As pioneers moved Gothic cottages used for religious retreats. Many of these ~ * West, small-but-service- tiny old houses still exist and have been given a second life i,., 11 able houses, such as as offices, playhouses, and seasonal - or even year-round ~ M ~ ~3 j i shotguns and log cab- - homes. The appeal of tiny old houses lies in their : ~- i ins, paved the way for compact size, which requires some ingenuity to make larger communities. comfortable, as the following two tales describe. Our Often, tiny houses thanks to all who wrote. 13 - 4 provided basic living < necessities as a main Ing Cabin Life Cooped Up house was being j constructed; after -1\ E- Y HUSBAND, RAY, AND I HAVE A HISTORY OF DOING ~ a land- the main house was ~ ~ ~ the unusual. We have restored several homes , ~ This almost two-dimen- sional house, completed, tiny 1 JL and built our first camp from an old house , New , houses might be- and barn that we dismantled. In February of I991, Ray mark in Mamaroneck, since the 1920s, come outbuild- and I snowmobiled to a close friend's log cabin in the York, was once a chicken coop. ings. While the woods. Since it was my first visit, I was given a tour of the r Â· i, stately Monticel- place and the surrounding property. Next to our triend s It sits on a sliver of lo was being house sat an old, one-room log cabin, falling into disre- property, sandwiched built, Thomas pair. The cabin was I6' x I4' with a ten-foot porch incor- between two full-sized Jefferson took porated under one roof. Inside, a stairway led to a small houses. -Loren Phelps up residence in loft. I immediately fell in love with it! My husband and I a 2 IO sq. ft. were searching for a new project, so out friend kindly gave Richmond,Virginia brick building, us the log cabin to restore. known as the When the ice and snow had receded, we began dis- 01.[)-tiOUSIE JOURNAI. 6 mantling the cabin. The original windows and stairway were delicious because it was spiced with the flavor of our suc- salvaged, but we couldn't save the original cedar shingles or cess! Yes, I have a microwave oven (and a one-burner hot the broken front door. Another minor disappointment was plate) because there is no room for a stove. It is amazing discovering that the original floor was rotten. Once the frost how quickly we discarded non-essentials for the basic of had left, we moved the dismantled cabin to a everyday living. Since we don't have running water, I have parcel of land that we owned in the foothills to allow room for water containers. We in- of the Adirondack Mountains. stalled a sink with a drain After extensive research, we placed to the basement, and I ! the cabin's construction around Ig3OÂ· Our ....0945.&984.-â€ž. use a movable Formica- I cabin was built for Bessie Conklin Bryden, covered board over the the descendant of an original settler in the -* .53 LE-'%250--9- sink as counterspace. To area. Originally, the log cabin was going ........./---Â»El/ill............... - prevent them from freez- to be a small museum or a playhouse for ing, I leave all of our our granddaughter. Then the idea of liv- canned goods in the re- i ing there began to appeal to me. After frigerator. In the living ar- all, we had worked so hard to restore it! eas, I have eliminated end Unable to resist the opportunity, we tables, and instead use an Shift Shack spent one night in our cozy cabin and old wooden box and a This tiny old house immediately decided to make it our â€ž *swing-shift shack for was a replica cobbler's bench, r "1 home away from home." Â· rail- 4 which double as storage road workers in the 1920s When we first moved in, my . Re- ~ space. In the loft, our bed- : husband and I were bumping into cana, each other and knocking books, 12' x 16' The f wall space for closets. cently;7etsw:~JECL~ehua- ~ troeo~e~Ine~ s~~the~re~1i~s'n~~al~y dishes, and clothes on the floor new building sports a f whenever we turned around. It also to Because of our demand- grey and cream paint seern ed that ifI picked up an item, job :1. match the main house as a Â£ ing business, we stay part of the I had to rearrange the cabin to . Used k week in our apartment, so for music studio, find a place to put it down! Yet it now 4 three days a week the cabin houses a baby grand piano in- : our enthusiasm for living there f serves asa year-round getaway for , stead of people. did not diminish, even when we 2 us. I really don't miss a stove, clos- were faced with the task of f et space, or a full bathroom be- - Bill Ferris K Tehuacana bringing the mattress ,Texas ~ cause we have chosen and bedsprings up the this scaled-down stairs to the loft. At one lifestyle. Right now, we point, we thought the . don't have a phone or a stairs would have to be television set and I taken out, but thanks - 4Â¥ ?r would like it to stay to my husband's inge- t - that way, but my hus- nuity, we hoisted them band enjoys more com- stra ight up and in. forts. Eventually, we Our heat is pro- b - 'Weig might give up the vided by a large .*. couch for two chairs propane furnace in- - and a small TM Slowly, stalled where a windovv A we are developing a sys- Â¢2 4 was (we didn't want to 1 1 tem for co-existing in cut a hole in the wall) * our log home and can and we also have elec- look around with pride tricity. The first meal I in our accomplishment. "cooked" in the cabin It is definitely an ad- was macaroni and It's a tight squeeze in 01(r one-fooni kE cabin, venture. cheese in the mi- butfunliture that does double-duty, like the replica cobbler's bench -ALICE F. GROWER crowave oven. It tasted whi,b sen,es as an end table and storage space, helps. Poland, New York 6I Sh'>IF.MBER â€¢Ocroill It ~99 / ' .Â·t- . I. -1.-MI 4AE-- 1\ e .,--:*-.Â·-1. Â·Â· Â»44 4 - -J -Ir 1 - 11 1 . . 21-1 A. 1 .L-v-.--fil:%293#31*#.....- -- fa The Dollhouse head. In the kitchen, open shelves and a make-shift, L- shaped counter served as cupboards, but the only true N I980, MY MOTHER PURCHASED A TINY COTTAGE ON storage space was a small closet under the stairs. Reaching ~ Cape Cod. nicknamed "the Dollhouse;' for use as the toilet enclosure, which didn't include a shower or a a family summer home. It is located within the tub, required going out the kitchen door. Yarrnouth Camp Ground, a community which began The vacationing demands of my three sisters, as a campground for methodist religious meetings in their families, my mother, and myselÂ£ plus the desire ~ ~863- The camp-meeting idea combined worshipping for indoor plumbing, all prompted ambitious plans for and socializing in the late the expansion of the cottage. Igth century. - .'47*CÂ¢42Â»,1~4 We doubled the original 350 Originally, the cottages sq. ft. to a palatial 675 sq. ft. were family rents, which were ~~ ~ r ~LI ---- (not including 120 sq. ft. of I 3.,9 canvas-covered wooden frames . , screened porch) but still pre- mounte o n den plat- ' f.4 = f~** served the entire original forms. As families began to 4% -~33 Gothic "room. Discreetly Â·b~ d WOO ,, stay for longer amounts of 1 kil L . 4 4,= k --- ; IMI added were a kitchen/break- *r time, the canvas sides were re- - *A 3 *133'M fast area opening onto a .2. placed with wood. The . - -- '.Â·99&&* screened porch and an attic- Yarmouth Camp Ground - -7 1 *fffÂ© storey sleeping area with the reached a maximum of 150 to .m- 11-Â». v... prized indoor bathroom. True to the original, the I60 cottages. Over- time, some were removed or destroyed by . r-- = - --lia:- 1 cottage remains uninsulated storms, so that by I932 there . mâ€ž /7 - /40 ' -I ' ' , with the framing exposed in- . side and slated for the leisurely were approximately 75 cottages left, the number that remains . ~ . ., . addition of white paint. Each today. Several different sizes (t~ lÂ® Aspan #tbermovation, the Yrmoutb Camp Gyound sister-in-residence always pur- and styles of cottages emerged preferred thai our cotta# was moved one spot over. sues some small improvement, over the years. Our cottage is (top rib) 14 100,#line # tbe new addition abors the Dollbouse's lending campground charm to in the most common style, original one. (above) A peek inside tbe one-mom cottage the whole project. Just inside "Campground Gothic/' that shows its exposedfaming. the door hangs a small paint- has a gable roof of cedar shin- ing which was found in the gles, gingerbread decoration, and tongue-and-groove, ran- collage. It shows the cottage as seen from the porch of dom-width board siding. Its floor plan was one of the one across Simpson Avenue, imparting the colors and most basic: a Io' x 12' living room with steep, ladder-like flavors of summertime at this now secular, yet still spiri- staircase m one corner leading to a sleeping room above. tually uplifting retreat. The bedroom only had headroom at the ridge, which - JANE TREACY made it difficult to walk around with out bumping your Washington, D C 01.8-HOUSE Jot,RNAL Wood Restoration System The New Standards To Restore & Replace Wood 7 Specified by the U.S. Government, national restoration centers, - 2**'"Â·t:' 1, museums, architects, contractors and other professionals, Abatron's B~CL~ ,~1*~~vi~ I dil'VS LcidÂ£/ restoration materials handle virtually any wood repair problem. Results This rotted - and irreplaceable - woodwork.. are guaranteed by years of incredible performance and our service. * LiquidWoodÂ® gail. Deep penetrating wood consolidant. . W - High-strength and strong adhesion, r<J..... . 'i i.,0,#'i *4 clear, transparent, low viscosity. ...4 lilli '4;â€¢14Â§~ Regenerates and waterproofs wood by hardening after penetrating. Can /0: ~ be brushed or poured on. Ideal for -~ ...can be easily and permanently restored.. rotted windowsills and frames, ,~ columns, doors, furniture, sculptures ~ structural and decorative compo- ~ nents of any size in/outdoors. 06 P.:49 1 0 - Â· , f I 1-4 4-*f5 : r...1 WoodEpoxÂ® pllli . ./ I The most versatile, STRUCTURAL & - ---Â·Â·--â€¢0-~ decorative wood substitute & 1 r~ no-shrink adhesive putty used in I vy -0.-2' -Â·--1.L,=Y .sanded, nailed, stained or painted. any thickness to replace, repair, 1 k .- extend or fill wood and other Etâ€¢~ :'~. materials in structures, frames, ~ furniture, boats, components, sculp- 0,~ EEÂ·i,--Â·':.2â‚¬.Re#â‚¬.- tures, in/outdoors. Can be sawed, lill t... . . 41 ..1,,i:eld,,E nailed, planed, stained, painted. Often stronger than the original, -,1/1/ _-1~- . unaffected by water, weather and - termites. A NEW STANDARD IN WOOD RESTORATION. 10" rotted bottoms of these load-bearing columns. Abatron's 5-can Wood Restoration Kit contains - - LiquidWood A and B, WoodEpox A and B, and Abosolv solvent. Available in pint, quart and gallon sizes. h/1 -:- VISA, MASTERCARD, & AMERICAN EXPRESS ACCEPTED &1- f,41.9 ali~illi *Millimi . '41, i.aa///// Call 1-800-445-1754 ...7,Â·is.'Â·*-jttt .were completely sawed off and replaced with. IN ILLINOIS 708-426-2200 an' ABATRON, INC. 33 Center Drive, Dept. OHI, Gilberts, Illinois 60136 Since 1959, manufacturers of: Structural adhesives and sealants 6,0 1 14.4 2- 44-1.147,31 Protective and waterproof coatings - Seamless floors - Grouts for pitted and spalled surfaces Terrazzo systems - Expansion joints - Anchoring grouts for posts, precasts and structures WoodEpox, which outpertorms and outlasts wood. Underwater patching compounds - Resins for fiberglas and composites Caulks - Crack injection resins