2010_June17_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Education Complex Historic District standards reference the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties as the guidelines all projects must follow. The architect explained that they tried to adhere to these guidelines as much as possible. Comments and questions from the Commission and responses included: - Preservation Brief number 14 published by the National Park Service addresses the topic of new exterior additions to historic buildings. In this document, the NPS highlights three key points meant to provide guidance to those planning an addition to a historic building. The three items are: (1) preservation of significant historic materials and features, (2) preservation of historic character, and (3) protection of historical significance by making a visual distinction between old and new. Has the architect met each item for consideration in the best manner possible? Architect: The addition was unavoidable due to consolidation and enrollment numbers. Based on the existing renovations necessary, such as the gym and library, this was the design they felt best met the needs of the school. The existing gym and library were up to today’s standards and by moving the gym and library to the addition, the existing ones could be renovated into more appropriately used space. As far as preservation of significant historic materials and features, the architect stated that was shown in the scale of the addition. By keeping the building height lower, and stepping the roof line down with each section, more of the original building was able to be displayed when looking at it from the west. Preservation of historic character was also taken into consideration and again, the scale of the addition does not obstruct the historic character. Visual distinction was met by not blending any of the new into the old, but by providing an obvious line of separation between the two building sections. This item was most easily addressed, and the architect stated they did so in the best way they thought possible. Commission members: Responding to the architect, some Commission members stated they think the architect did a good job meeting the third item for consideration from the NPS, but perhaps could have done more to address items one and two. Still other Commission members stated the architect did the best they could taking into consideration the layout of the existing building and that the addition is a necessity. While the Commission members generally agreed that the proposed layout, use, and site plan met the NPS Standards, they would still like further discussion about exterior materials, appearance, aesthetics, and minor design issues. - There were previous proposals from the bond issue that was passed by voters. How did the architect decide on this layout and design? Page 2 of 3 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes – June 17, 2010 Q:\WPOFFICE\Historic Preservation Commission\Minutes