William Street Revitalization Project Feasibility Study Developed …€¦ · William St Corridor and Surrounding Areas Building Conditions Assessment 69 William Street 71-77 William

William Street Revitalization Project Feasibility Study

Developed with funding assistance from Housing Trust Fund Corporation and NYS Homes & Community Renewal. Document is property of Housing

Trust Fund Corporation and Best Resource Center, Inc. SHARS ID: 20180039

A Project by: Best Resource Center, Inc

Report produced by: AMA Consulting Inc

Feasibility Study William Street Revitalization Project

Developed with funding assistance from Housing Trust Fund Corporation and NYS Homes & Community Renewal. Document is property of Housing Trust Fund Corporation and Best Resource Center, Inc.. SHARS ID: 20180039 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements Executive Summary Introduction and Background William Street Plaza Project Overview William St Corridor and Surrounding Areas Building Conditions Assessment 69 William Street 71-77 William Street 79 William Street Design Concepts Residential Units Commercial Units Community/Coworking/Outdoor Space Cost, Budget & Planning Proposed Construction Budget Project Funding/Financing Proposed Timeline Operating Projections Project Support & Viability Community Engagement Process Project Viability Appendices



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

New York Mainstreet (NYMS) - Grantor City of Newburgh City of Newburgh IDA Orange County IDA Empire State Development (ESD) Hudson Valley Regional Council (HVRC) State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Best Resource Center Inc (BRC) – NYMS-TA Grantee & Project Manager Be the Good LLC (BTG) – Community Survey Consultant JGA Architects PLC (JGA) – Feasibility Architect Gibbons Engineering PC (GE) – Feasibility Engineer Community Preservation Corporation (CPC) SUNY Orange Community Capital New York Habitat for Humanity - Newburgh Newburgh Community Land Bank Safe Harbors Inc PathStone - Newburgh Project Life Inc The Center for People Development Inc (CPD) VIP Partners LLC (VIP) – Site Owner AMA Consulting Inc (AMA) – Project Coordinator & Writer



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Best Resource Center, Inc. (BRC) is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization located in Newburgh NY. BRC’s focus is on Human Services and Community Development, with a specific emphasis on continued development of the City of Newburgh and its Residents. In furtherance of its mission, BRC secured New York Main Street-Technical Assistance Grant (NYMS-TA) to assist in the development and revitalization of the William Street Corridor, specifically looking at the feasibility of an anchor project located between 69-77 William Street. BRC partnered with the property owner, VIP Partners LLC (VIP) to examine redevelopment and reuse options for the existing buildings on these parcels. Subsequent to the application for this project, VIP acquired 79 William Street, a parcel that included a three-story residential building, vacant and in severe disrepair. VIP added this building to enlarge the footprint of the project at their own cost. VIP and its related companies have embraced the City of Newburgh as both a business investment and community development venture. The long-term strategy is to acquire, rehabilitate, return to service and manage an array of properties which contribute to the economic health and an enhanced quality of life in Newburgh. The goal encompasses residential, commercial and community space and focuses on revitalization of the William Street Corridor, returning it to its former position as a vibrant shopping and entertainment hub. The NYMS-TA grant was utilized to conceptualize an anchor concept on William Street, midway between Broadway and Overlook Place, including concepts, design, schematics, renderings and cost estimates. To advance and align with the strong commitment of both BRC and VIP to community involvement in planning and development of the proposed project, a community and business outreach assessment was undertaken, the results provided to the creative team and used to guide their efforts in designing space responsive to local interests and needs. The needs of the Newburgh community cover a wide array of needs/wants: residential, retail, commercial, recreation, community and coworking space. This project cannot answer all these needs and or wants of the community requests. Our goal is to design a project that can fulfill as many of these needs and wants, while developing one that would be economically viable. This project plan is to provide high quality housing, modern workspace / office space, commercial/retail space and restaurant space. In addition, the project will have some flexible space that can be used as conference rooms, class rooms and event space for community service organizations and the community at large. JGA Architects (JGA) was retained to study the buildings and work with group (BRC, VIP, BTG, AMA) to complete the feasibility study. JGA team also included Gibbons Engineering (GE) as part of their team in completing the analysis of the existing buildings. The William Street Revitalization Project aka William Street Plaza(WSP) is envisioning, the existing buildings adaptive reuse into an anchor property consisting of two three-story mixed-use buildings flanking a two-story commercial space connecting the two. The rehabilitation uses the East End Historic Guidelines as a reference and adaptation. This project is situated in and is part of the East end historic district in the City of Newburgh. The conceptual design seen within the following pages restores and creates 12 one-bedroom residential apartments and approximately 15,000 square feet of commercial/retail space, featuring a large, flexible coworking/community space with both indoor and outdoor areas. The larger goal is to create a project that supports the live, work and play model. The ability for there to be community that someone can live in, work in, start a business, shop and enjoy a



great meal, all within footsteps of where they live and work, is the beginning of a space it can be an anchor for upward mobility and future development. The William Street Corridor stretch into the heart of the city, City Hall, SUNY Orange College, State and City Services to the right to the riverfront and flows directly into the St Luke’s Cornwall Hospital and Mount St Mary’s College. The public transit system runs one block on either side of the project site, and this is a major through way as drivers cross over from New Windsor and Washington Heights to get to the city service centers, the hospital and the colleges. This project is uniquely situated to use these facilities to become a hub for shopping and services, alongside residents that enjoy their neighborhood. Before:

Proposed:



BUILDING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT 69 William Street: This is a three-story building, last occupied twenty-five plus years ago. It had several previous owners that tried to rehabilitate, but never completed. It is currently partially gutted and in disrepair. The structure is solid, with an intact roof cornice, window ledges and facade, all part of the historic fabric of the community building. The roof is intact and only need minor repairs. The entire interior needs to be redone. This building covers the entire lot. It previous use was a mixed property, three residential units and one commercial unit. Pictures: 69 William Street



71-77 William Street: This is a one-story L-shaped building, last occupied unknown years ago. The building occupies the entire lot, previously listed as 77 William Street, and is attached to thirty feet wide building along the back of the properties listed previously as 71 and 73 William Street. Historically, there was a three-story building on the 73 William lot and that was demolished in 2016. At that point this combination became 77 William Street, with a one-story L-shaped building on it. The roof on the rear portion is completely rotted way, and the roof on the long side, is repairable to some extent. This building façade, contributes to the historical fabric of the community and district. The sidewalk was redone to comply with insurance requirements. The side walk is now stamped concrete, as required by the Architectural Review Commission of Newburgh. Pictures: 71-77 William Street



79 William Street: This is a three-story building, last occupied twenty plus years ago. It had several previous owners that tried to rehabilitate, but never completed. It is currently partially gutted and in disrepair. The structure is solid, with an intact roof cornice, window ledges and facade, all part of the historic fabric of the community building. The roof is intact and only need some repairs. The entire interior needs to be redone. It most previous use was six residential units. Pictures: 79 William Street



DESIGN CONCEPTS Residential Units: The second and third floors of 69 & 79 William Street Building are conceived to be residential units. These are planned to be twelve (12) one-bedroom units. The goal of these units is to be occupied by people who would work in the commercial spaces or start a business in the commercial spaces. Below are the concept plans. Architectural:



Commercials Units: The first floor of 69 & 77 William Street building and the 2nd floor (new construction) of the 77 building will be all commercial spaces. There has been requests for restaurant space, green grocer, fresh produce, merchandise (clothes, shoes, toys), cell phone and ice cream space. This space will also have flexible community space on the 2nd floor of 77 William Street, for special events, birthday parties, quinceanera, and other community events. Architectural:



Community/Co-Working Units: This space will provide permanent homes for a few not-for-profit agencies, as well as provide share office space for new and upstart business that do not have the resources to get their own space. In addition, there will be some capacity for drop-in use by community resident business and visitors. Possible buildout perspectives:



PLANNING, COST & BUDGET This project was conceptualized as a rehabilitation of these buildings. The goal is to modernize, while retaining its historic and community significance, returning them to full use. The cost basis is to utilize standard construction materials and systems, while being cost conscious, given the environment and the capacity of community to support such as project. In order to understand and evaluate the project, the community survey results played a vital role in the conceptual design and will play an even bigger role in the marketing of the commercial and retail space. It is important to note, the lack of community event and socialization space from the results of the survey. Adapted into the concept is the flexible space on the second floor that can be additional classrooms, instructional class space, conference spaces or accommodate events from birthday parties to wedding receptions. The project financials suggest that the project will be feasible operationally and can sustain itself, based on income, expenses and debt, along with the historic preservation tax abatement. Operations Performa Summary:

Revenue 276,480

Expense 230,903

Net 45,577

Rehabilitation & Construction Budget:

This budget was developed to encompass the needs of the building and available options for grants

alongside financing. The budget takes into consideration, this work will enable the group to apply for

the New York Downtown Anchor Grant and the Empire State Development Grant, each of which the

maximum is $500,000, totaling $1,000,000 of projected grant support. That is a tall order, however, this

project is a tall order, given that this part of the community has been neglected or abandoned for

several decades. The construction budget is projected to be $2,650,000, with $1,000,000 in grant

funding, alongside, $1,650,000 in cash and financing. The construction budget below details the

expenses:



PROJECT SUPPORT & VIABILITY Community Engagement Process: This project is conceptualized to reinvigorate this part of the community and create opportunity to grow the City of Newburgh as whole. Further to this perspective, Best Resource Center and VIP Partners engaged Be the Good LLC to do a community survey, and at the same time, reached out to other stakeholders in the community, other community providers, the City of Newburgh and invested partners to share the opportunity and gain their input. As listed in the acknowledgements, we reached out and got the support of many. They provided input, guidance, history and letters of support for the project and for the proposals to New York Main Street and Empire State Development grant applications. Project Viability: This project is a realistic project, based on the community partners and site owner. There a several key supporters in the Community, including Best Resource Center, and VIP Partners is vested in the development of William Street. VIP and their associates have acquired a sizeable number of properties along the William Street corridor and the adjacent blocks to create a transformative process over the next couple of years. They are investing time and resources into the community, from their real estate holdings to rehabilitation of community parks. The project costs are substantial, and the timeline depends on the awarding of grants, final financing needs, approvals from the city planning and building department. The proposed project has been reviewed for construction costs and financing options, including scaling back in the case of reduced awards or no awards. The scaling back scenarios will enable the project to move forward, but as a multi-phase project as to develop cash flow to enable further financing for the project. This will adjust the timeline for the completion of the project and will reduce the transformational nature of the concept. The goal is to complete this as a one phase project and transform William Street as destination to live work and play.



APPENDICES Architectural Designs

Renderings & Space Design Options

Design, Development & Construction Timeline

Community Survey Report

Informational Report

East End Historic Guidelines

80

62

34

95

10

0

33

14

35

63

63

14

7

29

29

39

61

10

0

25

3

22

35

35

37

37

GIBBONS ENGINEERING

NEWBURGH, NY

LOCATION MAP

SCALE: NTS

•••

SITE PLAN

SCALE: 1" = 20.0'

••

•

amoonTag

GIBBONS ENGINEERING

1st FLOOR PLAN

SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"

amoonTag

AP

AR

TM

EN

T #1

AP

AR

TM

EN

T #2

AP

AR

TM

EN

T #3

AP

AR

TM

EN

T #4

GIBBONS ENGINEERING

2nd FLOOR PLAN

SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"

amoonTag

AP

AR

TM

EN

T #1

AP

AR

TM

EN

T #2

AP

AR

TM

EN

T #3

AP

AR

TM

EN

T #4

GIBBONS ENGINEERING

3rd FLOOR PLAN

SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

amoonTag

GIBBONS ENGINEERING

FRONT ELEVATION`

SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"

amoonTag

GIBBONS ENGINEERING

LEFT ELEVATION` BUILDING 69

SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

amoonTag

GIBBONS ENGINEERING

RIGHT ELEVATION BUILDING 77

SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

amoonTag

GIBBONS ENGINEERING

amoonTag

William Street Project Renderings 2018

Developed with funding assistance from Housing Trust Fund Corporation and NYS Homes and Community Renewal.

Document is property of Housing Trust Fund Corporation and Recipient organization. SHARS ID: 20180039 1

View from William Street

View from William Street




Rear View to William Street

Option for Coworking Space, 79 William Street




Option for Coworking Space, 79 William Street

Option for Classroom Space, 2nd Floor, 77 William Street




Option for Conference Space, 2nd Floor, 77 William Street

Option for Banquet Space, 2nd Floor, 77 William Street




Option for Banquet Space, 2nd Floor, 77 William Street

Option for Outdoor/Deck Space, 2nd Floor/Rear, 79 William Street




Option for Outdoor/Covered Deck Space, 2nd Floor/Rear, 79 William Street

William Street Plaza Proposed Timeline

10/31/18 11/30/18 12/31/18 01/31/19 02/28/19 03/31/19 04/30/19 05/31/19 06/30/19 07/31/19 08/31/19 09/30/19 10/31/19 11/30/19 12/31/19 01/31/20 02/29/20 03/16/20

Awards Annnounced

Contracts Completed

Prework & Finalized Financing

Design & Development - Construction Documents

Permits

Contract Bids

Bids Awarded

Site Prep

Demolition

Framing

Electrical, IT, Security & Plumbing

Foundation & Shoring

Sprinkler& Fire Systems

Floors

Kitchens

HVAC

Elevator

Exterior - Pointing

Windows/Storefronts/Glazing

Drywall, Plastering and Finishing

Roof

Final Finishes

Site cleanup and finishing

Tenant Completions

Ribbon Cutting

amoonTag



SUMMARY

NEWBURGH, NEW YORK COMMUNITY SURVEY Best Resource Center, in consultation with VIP Partners, engaged Be The Good, LLC, to design and conduct a survey of residents, visitors and businesses regarding their experiences and opinions about living, working, shopping and operating a business in Newburgh, New York. The main goal of the survey was to provide guidance in the development of a project to be known as William Street Plaza, with specific emphasis on the types of businesses and services to be included in the available building footprint. The survey process included personal interviews in face-to-face meetings and telephone surveys to businesses, some of whom were identified as vendors or sponsors in the Newburgh Illuminated Festival, a long-standing, well-attended local event. Survey responses and anecdotal results have been provided to the project design team for building utilization concepts and space planning. Findings not directly related to William Street Plaza are being provided to BRC and VIP for potential program and community development initiatives beyond the scope of the current project. Based on survey results, the proposed William Street Plaza project is ideally positioned to promote and support the Mid-Hudson’s Regional Economic Development Council’s Live, Work and Play agenda. By incorporating the following elements into the design and operation, the project will directly respond to opportunities to enhance the William Street Corridor within the City of Newburgh.

• Introduce a mixed-use anchor including residential, commercial, retail, flexible/co-working and community space

• Create upper-level residential units supporting work/life balance and improved quality of life options

• Locate multiple key businesses in one location, enabling residents to streamline shopping, much of which is done on foot, into manageable and affordable trips

• Offer extended operating hours for Plaza businesses, addressing concerns related to commuters and families with children in afterschool programs and activities

• Provide a well-lit, safe and secure anchor with attention to landscaping and general curb appeal • Strategically incorporate businesses identified by respondents into updated floor plans • Expand beyond the anchor to adjoining parcels and blocks, serving as a catalyst for neighborhood

revitalization

• Facilitate employment opportunities in Plaza businesses and provide support for Entrepreneurs and Start-Ups in coworking space; William Street Plaza will provide varied full time and part time employment opportunities

• Offer a flexible indoor/outdoor space for community events and resident activities



Beyond the business needs to be used in space utilization and allocation, the major themes which emerged from the survey fall within the following categories:

• Newburgh is a City with rich history and great potential, with the majority of residents, workers and visitors expressing excitement and support for revitalization along the William Street Corridor

• Newburgh has an economically challenged, diverse population that feels generally optimistic about the City’s future

• Newburgh would benefit greatly from businesses with the potential to create a new job market for a low- to higher-skilled workforce

• Newburgh needs improved, affordable housing stock, as well as a broader complement of low, moderate- and higher-income level rental and owner-occupied properties to create a diverse economic base

• The City of Newburgh is four square miles, bordered by the Town of Newburgh, the Town of New Windsor and the Hudson River. Many residents do not own vehicles and have limited access to nearby shopping districts.

• Newburgh would benefit greatly from improved regional transportation, to facilitate access to better employment opportunities in neighboring communities within Orange County

• Newburgh is a City of contrasts, with consistent opinions expressed on safety and cleanliness of the City: conditions vary building to building, block to block, neighborhood to neighborhood, day to night, occupied versus unoccupied buildings

• Restoration of abandoned buildings is seen as a major factor to elevate the City’s overall appearance and viability

• Small businesses, new ventures and entrepreneurs would benefit from flexible coworking space options that will enable them to grow incrementally, with minimal start-up investment, limited fixed/overhead costs and collaborative/networking opportunities

• Newburgh needs additional community center/recreational space to serve its youth population Survey templates, the completed survey instruments and a summary aggregating all responses have been provided to Best Resource Center and VIP Partners.

Submitted by: Denise Zimmer, Project Principal CEO and Managing Partner Be The Good, LLC New Brunswick, NJ 08901 October 1, 2018



DETAILED RESULTS

NEWBURGH, NEW YORK COMMUNITY SURVEY The survey consisted of twelve questions with responses and comments summarized below. Note that in numerous cases, respondents jumped between questions and ideas, and consequently, there is some overlapping or digressing within the responses offered to specific questions. 1. Are there enough businesses in your neighborhood? 1=Not enough 10=Enough

Survey responses were spread from 1-10 and almost evenly split above and below the midpoint rating. This result was consistent with the anecdotal information provided by respondents.

• The community needs more businesses for shopping, employment and expanded economic activity • There are enough businesses for the basics, but not enough variety • Existing business hours of operation do not meet the needs of local residents; particularly those who

work outside of the City

• There are enough businesses near the colleges and main thoroughfares, but not well distributed in neighborhoods

• There are not enough business offerings compared to nearby towns, i.e., Middletown • There are not enough businesses to provide meaningful, sustained employment opportunities, as many

businesses are family-owned, ‘Mom & Pop’ operations

• There are not enough opportunities for start-ups and entrepreneurial ventures to scale up incrementally • There are not enough services/resources for residents in need

2. How would you rate the quality of businesses in your neighborhood? 1=Poor 10=Excellent

Survey responses were spread from 2-10 and weighted slightly above the midpoint rating. This result was consistent with the anecdotal information provided by respondents.

• Everything needed for daily life can be bought in town, but major shopping is done elsewhere • Family-owned, ‘Mom and Pop’ stores geared for the community are more prevalent than chain stores,

and most respondents were happy to support and buy local

• Some businesses maintain limited inventory, both in quantity and variety, due to space considerations and product shelf-life

• Some local neighborhoods are not conducive to business viability due to general economic climate, low population density, being stand-alone operations (not grouped with other businesses) and not within ‘reasonable’ walking distances

• There is significant business turnover in the same space, preventing a consistent, reliable shopping experience

• There was a general sense that zoning and historical district regulations were restrictive and cost prohibitive, particularly to pilot ventures, although more research is recommended to validate this belief

• Neighborhood-based businesses would benefit from extended operating hours to be more responsive to community needs and increase sales



3. How safe is your neighborhood? Survey responses were spread from 1-10 and weighted exactly at the midpoint rating. This result was consistent with the anecdotal information provided by respondents.

• Safety depends on what you are doing • Neighborhoods are safe if you know the territory • Neighborhoods are not safe at night/after dark • It is generally a ‘good town’ and safety depends on various factors (note, this comment was shared by a

respondent who had been personally assaulted on three separate occasions)

• Neighborhood safety has gotten worse in the last few years • Safety depends on the area – one respondent felt that more public service violations and fines for empty

properties would encourage better upkeep and boost renewed economic activity 4. How clean is your neighborhood?

Survey responses were spread from 1-10 and weighted somewhat below the midpoint rating. This result was consistent with the anecdotal information provided by respondents.

• Too many unoccupied properties are not well maintained; occupied properties are mostly kept up • Certain areas of town are clean; City should try to make everything ‘like Westchester’ • There is limited pride in the community ‘compared to New Windsor’ • Community has problems with drug paraphernalia, crack & heroin, 3 shelters, loitering outside stores

5. How often do you shop in your neighborhood?

Survey responses were spread from 1-10 with results grouped and distributed at the lower, upper and midpoint rating. This result was consistent with the anecdotal information provided by respondents, particularly that proximity of businesses, type of purchases (prepared and perishable food vs. shelf-stable) and availability of transportation are key factors in where and when residents shop.

• Tend to buy food in town more than other types of consumer purchases • Travel outside of City for other shopping

6. In which businesses do you shop in your neighborhood?

Automotive Discount/Dollar Store Laundromat Seafood market

Bakery/Dessert Eat-In Restaurants Liquor Store Specialty - retail

Clothing Grocery Store/Deli (small) Personal Services Take out/prepared/ fast food Coffee Shop Grocery Store (medium/large) Pet Care

Department Store (Walmart)

Hardware/Home Improvement

Post Office

General comments

• The quality of local businesses is hit and miss • Need local businesses due to lack of vehicle



• Parking in town is challenging 7. Which types of businesses or services would you most like to see added to your neighborhood?

Automotive - gas/service/parts Diverse retail stores (clothing/chain) Hobby Shops - skateboard/bikes/crafts Big Box store Educational/Vocational Services Industry/Manufacturing (for jobs)

Childcare/Afterschool Electronic/Game Stores Laundromat

Community/Rec/Youth Center Entertainment Medical Services

Cultural spaces - dance, theater, music, art

Financial Services Restaurants - Italian, Spanish, Organic

Delivery/Transportation services Grocery Store/Whole Foods Specialty food stores - butcher, seafood, organic, produce

Discount/Dollar Store Hardware/Home Improvement Parks and outdoor play spaces, children & adults

General comments

• Restaurants/stores need longer hours for people working late • Not enough Black-owned businesses • Need support services for entrepreneurial businesses • New businesses need good security and good pricing • Affordable businesses • Community and recreational services need more open times vs. scheduled activities • Need better public transportation • Need a "real" shopping center with bigger, better quality businesses as a draw to the city • The neighborhood is too old and not maintained.

8. How good is your neighborhood as a place to live?

Survey responses were spread from 1-10 and weighted somewhat above the midpoint rating. This result was consistent with the anecdotal information provided by respondents.

• New residents are causing higher rent and sale prices • Pressing issues for the community - housing, education, parenting, drugs and alcohol abuse • Need to invest in/rebuild local businesses, not push out and gentrify • Need security cameras and guards at shelters • Need more public investment to revitalize and rebuild • Appreciates that there is the Ministry Shelter in town for those who need it • Community could be much better without gentrification, preserving historic buildings, no overcrowding • Formerly a 10 as a place to live, now a 5 - was safer and cleaner

9. How good is your neighborhood as a place for children to live?

Survey responses were spread from 1-10 and weighted uniformly across the rating scale. This result was consistent with the anecdotal information provided by respondents.

• Metal detectors at schools • Not enough services/activities for children



10. Do you live in Newburgh (circle Y or N)

63% of respondents were residents of Newburgh 11. Do you work in Newburgh (circle Y or N)

50% of respondents work in Newburgh 12. What is your profession?

Respondents covered a range of ages and ethnicities, from middle school students to senior citizens, blue- and white-collar workers in government, private, education, medical and non-profit companies, unemployed and homeless, long and short-term Newburgh residents and those who frequent the town for work or activities only.

Survey completed by:

Be The Good, LLC New Brunswick, NJ 08901 October 1, 2018

CITY OF NEWBURGH FIRE DEPARTMENT

123 Grand Street Newburgh, New York 12550

Phone: 845-569-7419 Fax: 845-569-7435 TO: B. Alvin Moonesar

VIP Partners LLC

FROM: William Horton, Asst. Chief of Fire Prevention & Zoning Enforcement Office DATE: Updated September 21, 2018; September 12, 2018 SUBJECT: 69-79 William Street The City of Newburgh received an Informational Request in which the applicant proposes to redevelop the properties at 69, 77, and 79 William Street, Section 39, Block 2, Lots 23, 24, and 25. Upon a review of the current Certificate of Occupancy and intended use as described in the proposal, I offer the following comments: 1. The properties are located in the Commercial Zone (C). There is no current Certificate of

Occupancy for 77 William. The current Certificate of Occupancy for 69 William is Mixed-use with Residential (1- Mercantile, 2- One Family, 3-front One Family, 3-rear One Family). The current Certificate of Occupancy for 79 William is Apartment House (1N- One Family, 1S- to remain vacant, 2N- One Family, 2S- One Family, 3N- One Family, 3S- One Family).

2. The applicant has indicated they wish to combine the lots and convert 69 William Street into

four residential units and two commercial units; to construct at 77 William Street 6 commercial units, and convert 79 William Street into eight residential units and two commercial units (Mixed-use with residential).

3. Mixed-use with residential is not allowed in the C Zone (Section 300-31). The applicant must appeal for a use variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the change of use at 79 William Street. If granted a use variance, the applicant must then obtain site plan approval from the Planning Board, per Section 300-115(A)(4).

4. For purposes of compliance with the Bulk Area requirements, the schedule in Section 300-32 shall be utilized. The Following Bulk Area requirements are deemed not met by the applicant and a Variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals must be issued prior to any other applications:

Due to an error in the Zoning Code, there is no Bulk Schedule for Mixed-Use with Residential in the Medium Density Zone, which is determined to be the most analogous zone allowing the use. Based on consideration of the location of this property, and the type of use proposed, I offer the following interpretation of the Bulk, Area, and Parking Requirements.

Required Provided Variance Req. Lot Area 2500 >2500 N Lot Width 25 >25 N Lot Depth 100 100 N Front Yard 10 0 Y (10) Side Yard 5/5 0/0 Y (5/5) Rear Yard 20 0 Y (20) Building Height 3 3 N Lot Coverage 40% ~60% Y (20%) Parking 1/ DU 7 Y (5)

5. All exterior renovations must comply with Section 300-40 and obtain a Certificate of

Appropriateness from the Architectural Review Commission prior to the issuance of any Exterior Building Permits.

6. Specific standards for the Design, layout and construction of parking areas shall apply for new or expanded uses per Section 300-68.

7. Uses that may introduce fats, oil and/or grease into the City’s sewer system from food preparation, cooking, and/or dish washing proposed onsite will require grease traps appropriately sized shall be installed and properly maintained in accordance with the NYS Building Code. The City’s Plumbing inspector shall review and approve any grease trap prior to installation.

8. Food Service Establishments must be licensed and inspected by the Orange County

Department of Health. 9. All sewer discharges, other than sanitary wastes, may require on-site pretreatment prior to

discharge, along with applicable monitoring and reporting. A checklist is available from the City’s Engineering Department in order to assess the potential requirement of an IPP Permit. This must be filled out and signed by a licensed P.E. and reviewed by the City.

10. All construction, renovations, alterations and/or changes to the structure will require a

building permit application, accompanied by construction plans which meet the NYS Building Code and are stamped by a State of New York design professional. The application shall be submitted to the Building Inspector’s office at 123 Grand Street for final review and approval.

11. All exterior signage must be properly permitted and installed as required in Section 250. The Applicant should submit drawings of all planned signage, for review.

12. Electrical and plumbing work must be performed by a City of Newburgh licensed electrician

and plumber. 13. All asbestos and lead surveys and completed abatement reports must be completed by

certified technicians and submitted prior to any demolition or construction in the building.

14. Building that are three stories or more and of any residential use may be required to install sprinkler systems per NYS Building Code.

The City of Newburgh’s Code is available online at: http://ecode360.com/NE1082 UPCOMING DEADLINES:

A. The application requires Site Plan approval from the Planning Board. You will be required

to attend one Planning Board workshop and at least one Planning Board meeting. The applicant or their proxy is required to attend those meetings.

The NEXT Planning Board workshop will be October 2. The DEADLINE to submit all materials to make that workshop will be September 21.

The NEXT Planning Board meeting will be October 16. The DEADLINE to submit all materials to make that meeting will be October 5.

B. A Variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals must be obtained prior to the issuance of

Building Permits.

The NEXT Zoning Board of Appeals meeting will be October 23. The DEADLINE to submit all materials to make that meeting will be October 5.

C. All exterior renovations must comply with Section 300-40 and obtain a Certificate of

Appropriateness from the Architectural Review Commission.

The NEXT Architectural Review Commission meeting will be October 9. The DEADLINE to submit all materials to make that meeting will be September 18.

http://ecode360.com/NE1082

Design Guidelines for

Newburgh’s East End Historic District

Adopted Febuary 29, 2008 Prepared by Larson Fisher Associates

Woodstock, New York www.larsonfisher.com

This document was prepared with funds provided by the New York State Department of State under the Quality Communities Grant Program.



FORWARD & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Newburgh's unique architectural wealth was first recognized in 1973, when the Montgomery-Grand-Liberty Street Historic District was placed on the National Register of Historic Places. In 1977, that district was expanded by the City Council as the East End Historic District, which was then enlarged and added to the National Register in 1985. The City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC), a certified agent of New York State’s Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is charged with protecting and promoting the enhancement of this cultural resource.

On February 25, 2008 the City Council of the City of Newburgh Council adopted these design standards and guidelines which are designed to enhance the prospect of preserving the significant architectural and cultural assets of the East end Historic District for the betterment of the City and well-being of its residents; clarify the Secretary or Interior’s Standards as to their specific application to properties found within the East End Historic District for the betterment of the City and well-being of its residents; clarify the Secretary of Interior’s Standards as to their specific application to properties found within the East End Historic District; provide a clear basis for decisions by the City of Newburgh’s Architectural Review Commission in issuing Certificates of Appropriateness for proposed alterations to the buildings comprising the East End Historic District; and assist the Architectural Review Commission in providing guidance to property owners in the East End Historic District as they plan improvements and/or alternations to their properties.

In 2006, the City was awarded a grant from the Department of State under its Quality Communities Program to fund the development of design guidelines for the District. A number of City residents were recruited to provide guidance in the development of this document and the City of Newburgh offers its sincere appreciation for their time and dedication. The Committee members included:

Brigidanne Flynn Giovanni (‘John’) Palladino Jim Hoekema Charles Passarotti Joanne Lugo Lisa Silverstone Mary McTamaney Peter Smith Specific thanks are also extended to:

The City of Newburgh City Council Mayor Nicholas Valentine Councilmember Regina Angelo Councilmember Maryann Leo Dickinson Councilmember Marge Bell Councilmember Christine Bello

City Manager Jean Ann McGrane City of Newburgh Architectural Review Commission City of Newburgh Staff:

Lourdes Zapata-Perez, Community Development Director Ian MacDougall, City Planner Michelle Kelson, Assistant Corporation Counsel

Jill Fisher, Consultant, Larson Fisher Associates



TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. PURPOSE......................................................................................................................... p. 1

II. AUTHORITY TO APPROVE CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS.......... p. 1 III. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.......................................................................... p. 2 IV. NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM....................................... p. 2 V. DETERMINATION OF CONTRIBUTING STATUS & INTEGRITY.................. p. 3 VI. ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT................................................................................. p. 3 VII. MAINTENANCE OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS...................................................... p. 3 VIII. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR TYPICAL ALTERATIONS.................................... p. 4

Painting & Staining.......................................................................................... p. 4 Re-siding............................................................................................................ p. 5 Re-roofing.......................................................................................................... p. 6 Cornices & Parapet Walls............................................................................... p. 6-7 Window Replacement..................................................................................... p. 7 Door Replacement......................................................................................... p. 8 Masonry............................................................................................................ p. 9 Insulating.......................................................................................................... p. 10 Porch Alterations............................................................................................. p. 10-12 Security Features.............................................................................................. p.12

Secondary Buildings, Sheds & Trash Bins.................................................... p.12-13 IX. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ADDITIONS.................................................................. p.13 Style.................................................................................................................... p.13 Setbacks for Building Extensions................................................................. p.14 Building Mass................................................................................................... p.14 Additional Stories............................................................................................ p.15 Roofs................................................................................................................. p.16 Dormers – Skylights........................................................................................ p.16-17 Materials............................................................................................................ p.17 Fenestration (Windows)................................................................................. p.17 Decks................................................................................................................ p.17

Accessibility Ramps......................................................................................... p.18 Signs & Awnings............................................................................................ p.18-19 Lighting Fixtures.............................................................................................. p.20 Antennas........................................................................................................... p.20 Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning Units......................................... p.20 Garages.............................................................................................................. p.20

Solar Panels...................................................................................................... p.21 X. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR NEW BUILDINGS (Infill Construction)................ p.21 Styles.................................................................................................................. p.21 Setbacks & Alignments................................................................................... p.22 Building Mass................................................................................................... p.23 Building Height................................................................................................ p.23 Roofs................................................................................................................. p.23 Materials............................................................................................................ p.24 Fenestration (Windows)................................................................................. p.24 Garages & Sheds.............................................................................................. p.25 XI. SITE MODIFICATIONS...................................................................................................... p.25 Curbcuts............................................................................................................ p.25 Parking Spaces................................................................................................. p.25 Fences................................................................................................................ p.25 Plantings & Hardscaping................................................................................ p.26-27 XII. DEFINITIONS................................................................................................................ p.28-30

Schedule A – Map of East End Historic District

Appendices A. SECRETARY OF INTERIOR’S STANDARDS B. PROPERTY LIST FOR EAST END NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT C. ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXTS FOR THE EAST END

Design Guidelines for Newburgh’s East End Historic District page 1 PREPARED BY: Larson Fisher Associates ● Woodstock, New York ● www.larsonfisher.com

The East End Historic District is historically and architecturally significant as an intact concentration of historic buildings and sites which chronicle the development of the City of Newburgh from its mid-eighteenth century settlement period until the conclusion of a 150-year period of population growth and economic expansion in the mid-1930s...This 150-year continuum of growth and development is represented at each important stage by significant buildings and neighborhoods within the historic district. Included are architecturally significant examples of vernacular building practices unique to Newburgh, as well as numerous examples of progressive and sophisticated architectural design and landscape architecture, many by nationally recognized leaders in these fields.

From the 1985 Nomination of Newburgh’s East End Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of these design standards and guidelines is to: Enhance the prospect of preserving the significant architectural and cultural assets of the

East End Historic District (Schedule A, map of district) for the betterment of the City and well-being of its residents;

Clarify the Secretary of Interior’s Standards as to their specific application to properties found within the East End Historic District;

Provide a clear basis for decisions by the City of Newburgh’s Architectural Review Commission (ARC) in issuing Certificates of Appropriateness for proposed alterations to the buildings comprising the East End Historic District; and

Assist the ARC in providing guidance to property owners in the East End Historic District as they plan improvements and/or alterations to their properties.

II. AUTHORITY TO REGULATE HISTORIC PROPERTIES A. New York General Municipal Law, Article 5-K§119-dd.1, Local historic Preservation

Programs, establishes that municipalities may “provide by regulations, special conditions and restrictions for the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of places, districts, sites, buildings, structures...having a special character or historic, cultural, or aesthetic interest or value;” and “...such regulations, special conditions and restrictions may include appropriate and reasonable control of the use or appearance” of designated properties.

B. Article V.§ 300-24.A charges the ARC to “exercise aesthetic judgment so as to maintain

the character of the historic and architectural design districts...and to prevent construction, reconstruction, alteration or demolition which would be out of harmony with the style, materials, colors, line and details of same.” Paragraph C.10 of this article designates the responsibility for reviewing proposed changes to buildings and issuing Certificates of Appropriateness to the ARC.


III. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Article V.§300-26.E establishes the application requirements for a Certificate of Appropriateness. A. All applications for review by the ARC shall include:

1. Name, address, and contact information for the applicant and any representative, if applicable;

2. Location (address) and photographs of the property and the buildings and structures located thereon.

B. For repainting a building involving a change of color the applicant must also provide:

1. An photograph of the front facade (at minimum) with notations as to what colors will be for all walls and trim (for some buildings photographs with notations of all sides of a building may be required; and

2. Color chips and/or samples. C. For all proposed changes and modifications other than repainting (B, above), the

following additional information is required: 1. Elevation drawings of those building facades that will be changed by any proposed

alterations or additions; 2. Perspective drawing(s) of the building illustrating the changes being proposed and

the relationship to adjoining buildings, as required by the ARC; 3. Material samples and/or specifications for all proposed changes; 4. Scale drawing of any signs proposed for the property, with specifications for

materials, text, lighting, location on the property/building, and method of attachment;

5. Any other information that the ARC finds necessary for a complete evaluation of the proposed construction and/or alteration, which may include cost estimates, engineering evaluations, and documentation of need for changes;

6. Copies of any site plans or subdivision plans submitted to other boards and commissions of the City of Newburgh;

7. Copies of all SEQRA documents and proceedings, if such are required for other actions concerning the property.

D. Applications that are deemed incomplete will not be accepted or placed on the agenda

for review by the ARC. E. Applicants are to be advised and encouraged to submit their proposed alterations to the

ARC well before the purchase of any products, materials, or services. IV. NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM/SECRETARY OF

INTERIOR’S STANDARDS The ARC operates as the city’s official heritage preservation review board under the Certified Local Government program of the National Park Service, administered in New York State by the New York State Historic Preservation Office, which is within the New York Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. The City benefits from the pass-through funds available to Certified


Local Governments. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are the basis for these guidelines and the ARC’s design review decisions. See Appendix A. V. DETERMINATION OF CONTRIBUTING STATUS & INTEGRITY Prior to reviewing any application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, the ARC shall determine:

A. Whether the building is “contributing” to the historic character of the district, with reference to 1978 - 1985 historic resource surveys and nomination of the district to the National Register, any more recent updates to the survey, and/or interim findings by the ARC that recognizes a change in status since 1985 (see Appendix B and “Contributing Status” in definition). B. The integrity of the building/site in question, indicating if the property is intact, or has been altered. Where a property is determined to be altered, reasonable flexibility from the design standards set forth herein may be granted, provided that the overall intent of maintaining the historic character of the district and individual properties is upheld. Buildings that are found to be contributing and intact shall be held to the standards established by these design guidelines.

VI. ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT The Architectural Context shall provide the specific framework for the ARC’s case-by-case aesthetic judgment. There are two aspects to understanding architectural context:

All proposed alterations, additions, and/or new construction must be aesthetically sensitive to the existing historic character and design of a building and those within the immediate vicinity. Alterations and new construction must not overshadow, distract from, or in any way diminish the visual enjoyment of established historic features.

The buildings and properties surrounding the building being reviewed provide the best clues

as to what aesthetic characteristics should be incorporated into any proposal for altering an existing building or new construction.

To adequately understand the historic character of any given property, the person responsible for the planned alteration (property owner, contractor or design professional) must understand the building typologies, patterns of development, and materials found in the East End Historic District, and work within their established framework. Appendix C provides a visual reference and guide to these characteristics, features patterns for each type of building. VII. MAINTENANCE OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS

Repair not Replacement. The watchword for historic preservation is timely maintenance and repair NOT replacement. When building materials become worn or begin to show age, often the first impulse is to remove or replace the feature. However, this almost always results in a loss of original texture, patina, and historic character. The following sequence for planning alterations to a building within the district is required:


1. Repair: obtain a sufficient number of bids from qualified contractors to undertake the repair work if the property owner is not undertaking, or does not have the skill to undertake, the repair him or herself;

2. Replacement with like materials: if repair is infeasible after obtaining complete information

about that option, develop an estimate for materials and labor to replace irreparable building parts;

3. Replacement with alternative materials: if either of the above options are shown to be

infeasible, gather samples of various alternative materials and obtain sufficient estimates for the materials and labor.

Proposals to replace rather than to repair building elements must be supported with documentation of the above research into costs. Note that the State Building Code specifically deals with repairs to historic buildings in its Appendix K – Rehabilitation of Existing Structures, Chapter K-10 and states that “Repairs to any portion of a historic building or structure shall be permitted to be made with original or ‘like materials’ and methods of construction subject to the provisions of this chapter.” (See definition of like materials in Section XII, Definitions, and State Building Code/K1002.2 Repairs.) VIII. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR TYPICAL ALTERATIONS Alterations of historic buildings are sought for a number of reasons—to personalize a building, adhere to a corporate image, improve its appearance, provide for new technological functions, reduce required maintenance, and increase its energy efficiency. All these goals can be met while still maintaining the historic character of individual buildings. Careful review of alternative methods of achieving end goals can alleviate the any potential negative aesthetic impacts. The most frequent alterations made to buildings are examined below and guidance is provided that will help ensure that the overall historic character is protected. Painting & Staining

Repainting historic buildings is almost always preferable to residing as being the most appropriate finish for historic wood clad buildings. (See section on Masonry, below.) Note that:

transparent stain was not widely used until the early 20th century, and cannot be substituted for paint; however, more recent historic homes that were originally stained may be restained;

thorough wall preparation is the key to a lasting paint job, which may call for complete

stripping of old paint before priming and repainting;

heat guns should be used with utmost care to remove paint to avoid fire hazards and used only when other methods of paint removal give unacceptable results;


lead paint should never be removed by sanding or scraping; large-scale exterior paint removal, paint should be tested for lead content and a qualified contractor engaged to undertake this work, including legal disposal (federal and state advisories and regulations must be consulted before undertaking lead paint removal);

new finish products must be adequately tested and proven not to have harmful effects

on historic building materials (recently introduced paint-on vinyl products have not met this test);

proposed new paint colors should be in keeping with the historic style of the dwelling

and, in general, be selected from historic color palettes provided by well-known paint manufacturers;

when restoration of a building is desired, a paint analysis by a qualified consultant should

be done. Re-siding

Residing shall not result in the loss of historic character or historic materials and all improvements must present a finished appearance similar to the original building materials or appropriate to the building’s original style and historic period. These materials are generally of three types: wood, stone, or brick. Large areas of other materials such as polished metal, glass, vinyl and aluminum siding are not appropriate in the East End Historic District. Thus re-siding a building with any of the materials classified as not appropriate will not be allowed except under extraordinary conditions:

Deterioration of the original wood cladding is so extensive as to make its replacement economically unreasonable.

On portions of a building that are extremely difficult to repaint and maintain (such as

on properties where there is a space of three feet or less between buildings) and are minimally visible from public rights-of-way.

Other siding materials:

Asbestos shingle siding. Removal of asbestos shingles is not considered imperative to preservation efforts in the district and if the siding is in good shape, it may be preferable to repair rather than remove them. New, non-toxic, products are available for replacement of damaged asbestos shingles. Complete removal of asbestos shingles (because of plans to restore a historic building for example) is allowable, in which case plans for assessing and treating any original cladding beneath them must be presented, as well as for disposal of the materials in accordance with state law.

Cementatious clapboard. Products that simulate wood clapboard (e.g. Hardiplank,

Hardiboard) may be appropriate. Such residing material must replicate the smooth painted surfaces of authentic wood clapboard, not introduce an artificial wood grain to


the visual appearance of a building, match the reveal of the original clapboards, and incorporate corner boards where appropriate.

New Products. As other materials and products are developed, the ARC shall evaluated

their appropriateness on the basis of how well they replicate the original appearance of the historic siding.

Reroofing

When reroofing there are two main options available:

reroofing with a product that matches what is currently in place (a standard triple-tab type in a solid color that does not draw attention is usually most appropriate for reroofing an asphalt shingle roof).

determining what was originally on the house and using that as a guide for replication

(historic photographs are invaluable for guiding restoration efforts) Upgrading the roofing with textured, multi-colored shingles is often detrimental to the original character of the house. Asphalt shingles that attempt to replicate slate are only appropriate if the house once had a slate roof that has been previously replaced. In this case, some of the newer asphalt shingles come in slate colors and can be trimmed and shaped to replicate patterns once found on a roof. Slate roofs are high-end architectural features that too often are lost due to lack of maintenance and replacement rather than repair. A well-maintained slate roof can last well over 100 years and adds value to a building. Before being allowed to replace a slate roof, estimates and/or bids for repair together with the costs of total replacement, shall be submitted to the ARC.

Standing seam metal roofs were often early replacement roofs and as such lend a historic quality to the district, even if they weren’t the original roof on the building. They are long lasting and often painted, which extends their life. If new metal roofs are proposed, they should replicate the old style—in the widths between seams and color (gray or silver is most appropriate), otherwise they tend to appear very commercial and contemporary and therefore unacceptable. Wood shingle roofs, except in rare instances (George Washington’s Headquarters) are not in evidence in the East End Historic District. Even with documented proof that they were once used, their restoration may not be desirable from a safety standpoint (increased fire hazard in an urban setting), and therefore replication may be allowable.

Cornices & Parapet Walls

Cornices: Whether of pressed metal, terra cotta, brick, or wood, cornices are important, architecturally defining features of a building. Thus they should be retained to preserve the original style of a building and regularly maintained to avoid safety issues. Where severe deterioration requires their removal, there are two options:


Replacement in kind (many types are still being produced and most styles used in Newburgh are available).

Replacement with an acceptable new, lighter, and more durable material such as

fiberglass, Fypon or Azek. This option is acceptable due to the fact that their appearance cannot be distinguished from historic materials since they are typically located significantly above ground level, which precludes close inspection. The newer lighter materials also have an improved safety aspect.

Replacement of missing cornices, whether with in kind or replacement materials, should be based on photographic evidence of the historic appearance of the cornice.

Parapet walls: Like cornices, deteriorating parapet walls pose safety problems when not

adequately maintained. At the same time, they are an architectural feature that is important to be preserved. Parapet walls, are most often found on brick commercial/ industrial buildings and rowhouses, and:

simply tearing them down to the roofline is not permitted;

they must be rebuilt with a material that matches the original whenever possible, or with

a substitute material that closely replicates the original. Window Replacement

As with all original historic building fabric, repair is always preferable to replacement, particularly when it applies to windows and doors.

Improved energy efficiency can be obtained in a historically sensitive manner with the installation of either exterior or interior storm windows. When on the exterior, they should be painted to match the frame and/or trim of the window.

When replacing windows is unavoidable (as when they are missing from a vacant

property) the replacement window shall: - match the original size and type of window, - replicate exactly the original number and sizes of lights (panes), see below, - sit on the original sill, and - be clad in a dark color.

The presence of lead paint is not cause for replacement of windows (see Painting and Staining section, below).

EXAMPLE OF TYPICAL ITALIANATE OR CLASSICAL REVIVAL STYLE WINDOW

DO match type of window

& number & size of original panes.

DON’T board up or brick in.

DON’T use a smaller window than the opening.

DON’T add shutters where not originally used

nor choose a Colonial Style pane pattern.

False muntins on the interior of thermal pane windows and “snap-in grills” are not

acceptable in the historic district. Where thermal pane windows are found to be an appropriate choice, true divided lights

or simulated muntins shall be used. Which one is most appropriate shall be determined by how wide or narrow the muntins should be to best replicate what would have been original to the building.

Synthetic materials that precisely replicate the pattern and finished appearance of historic

windows are allowed, provided they are able to accept and hold paint.

Wood windows with permanent finish or cladding are acceptable, where the color of the cladding is in keeping with the style of the building.

Metal frame windows may be most appropriate for some commercial and/or industrial

buildings.

Where safety regulations require windows to be larger (for emergency exits), casement windows that replicate other types of windows such as double-hung, may be acceptable.

Tinted and or reflective glass is not permitted.

Door Replacement

Many of the 19th century historic buildings in the East End still have their original double doors with transoms above and/or sidelights. Like windows, every effort shall be made to retain original doors and their surrounds through maintenance and repair. When replacement of a door is determined to be necessary and/or the original door is missing, the following standards shall apply:

the original size of the door opening is to be maintained;


the style, size, and type of the door shall match the original;

if the original door has been previously replaced, the new door should complement the architectural style of the building;

transoms and sidelights shall not be painted, boarded up or bricked in.

Tudor Georgian/Colonial Italianate Queen Anne Arts and Crafts

Classic Newburgh Double Door

Masonry

The size, color, and finish of bricks, as well as mortar color and raking, are key elements of a brick building’s design. Periodic tuckpointing, and selective brick replacement is required to maintain brick buildings in good repair and, when undertaking such work, the materials shall match the original to the extent possible. Special attention should be paid to matching the original mortared joint: its composition (proportion of lime to Portland Cement), size of mortar joint, color, and profile (see below).

MORTAR PROFILES

beaded concave flat raked V

Other things to keep in mind when dealing with brick buildings:

Painting or parging of unpainted brick buildings is not allowed, unless the building was originally painted.

Some buildings constructed with “common brick” were intended to be painted, due to

the soft outer surface of the original bricks. In these cases, the paint shall not be removed, unless required (such as where lead paint is being removed) and repainting is intended.

Painting over original painted finish is recommended, after a thorough preparation of

the wall surface, in a uniform manner with natural, brick-toned colors.



Sandblasting is damaging to brick and is not allowed.

Cleaning of brick buildings should use the gentlest method available (see National Park Service Technical Bulletin #1 regarding masonry).

Graffiti removal is considered required maintenance and shall be done by the gentlest

means possible, and follow the above general guidelines. (See National Park Service Preservation Brief #38.)

A resource for dealing with masonry issues is A Glossary of Historic Masonry Deterioration Problems and Preservation Treatments, 1984, by the National Park Service Preservation Assistance Division.

Insulating

Insulating historic buildings should normally be done on the interior, in which case ARC review is not required. However, plans to blow in insulation from the exterior must be carefully reviewed to ensure that historic building materials are not damaged or compromised. The recommended procedure is to remove clapboards to allow access to the wall cavity and replace and restore them when completed.

Porch Alterations

Porches are important architectural features integral to a dwelling’s design. A porch provides scale and balance to the overall mass of a structure and balances the other elements of the building. They are frequently the only architectural embellishment on simpler, worker houses. Porch railings: Replacement railings are required to be substantially taller than those original to historic buildings due to changing safety standards and building regulations, which negatively affect the proportions. Therefore:

always repair rather than rebuild railings, if possible; when a railing must be rebuilt, avoid off-the-shelf balustrades, which are sized to today’s

building standards;

use alternative designs so that the original porch railing proportions may be retained while meeting current safety code requirements;

replace with like materials; vinyl components are not acceptable.

DON’T simply replace original railings with taller balustrades and higher railings, which destroys original proportions

DO repair rather than replace railings to maintain their original architectural proportions

DO use alternative means of meeting code requirements when replacing railings, such as using cables or pipe above traditionally scaled railings

Porch roof supports: Like railings, replacing columns (round), pillars (square), or posts (structural supports that can be round, square or turned) can drastically affect the historic look of a building. Therefore:

always repair rather than replace a porch roof’s structural supports, if possible; if replacement is determined to be necessary, make sure that style, size and material

matches the original;

when restoring porch supports, be guided by the style of the original house: columns for Federal, Greek Revival, and Colonial style buildings, pillars for Gothic Revival and Italianate style houses, and turned posts or column posts for Queen Anne style houses.

Doric Column Ionic Column Corinthian Column Chamfered Pillar Turned Post

Other porch ornamentation: The addition of architectural ornamentation is discouraged other than restoration of missing elements based on careful documentation.

scroll sawn brackets, spindled braces, and other “gingerbread” elements are not appropriate to Arts and Crafts Style houses;

avoid off-the-shelf “Queen Anne” style spindled brackets, that typically are not sized

correctly for historic houses.


Enclosing Porches: Enclosing porches to create additional indoor space is not appropriate, as additional wall space negatively impacts the overall architectural composition of a historic house and eliminates the important “eyes on the street” function of porches. However some modification to create 3-season porches may be allowed where:

the transparency of the front porch is maintained with large areas of screening or glazing;

important architectural features of porches—columns, railing, balustrade, spindled frieze,

brackets and braces—are retained and will remain visible from the street.

DO: Maintain transparency of porch with glazing, as in the example above.

DO: Integrate security features with the architecture of the building, like the wrought iron grates pictured above.

Security Features When security features are proposed for a building, whether commercial or residential, two

criteria must be met:

They shall not obscure architectural features of the building, nor block storefront windows on commercial buildings

Their attachment/installation shall not damage historic building fabric.

Secondary Buildings There are a number of historic secondary/accessory structures in the East End District that are worthy of special attention—they include carriage barns and early 20th-century garages. Any proposed changes to those visible from public rights-of-way will be governed by the same guidelines applied to primary structures and:

shall maintain the neighborhood development pattern of detached garage set well back from the front property line;



shall retain key architectural features, such as windows in the doors, when altered to accommodate additional or larger vehicles;

may be adapted to new uses such as potting sheds, guest cottages, home offices, or other

suitable alternative activities to allow for their retention.

Sheds and Trash Bins Sheds and any small structures for containing trash bins or serving other functional purposes need to be carefully designed so as to minimize any negative visual impact and:

shall be located in rear or side yards out of view from public rights-of-way whenever feasible;

shall designed to be as inconspicuous as possible, when they must be located in front of

a building, and finished to match the color of the building to which they belong;

shall comply with current city sanitation codes and policies. IX. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ADDITIONS General Principle: New additions must preserve the integrity of the original historic building and any previous additions that may be deemed historic by virtue of their age and aesthetic contribution. Destruction of historic features and materials, either directly through removal, or indirectly through visually obscuring or diminishing the original building is unacceptable. An addition to the principal or front facade of a historic building is to be avoided at all costs. Additions to secondary facades that have unobstructed public views must also be avoided. Where additions are required to improve safety or provide for needed additional functions, the damage to historic materials is to be minimized and the addition constructed so it could be removed in the future without further damage to the building. Style The style of a building addition should take its aesthetic clues from the building to which it is

being attached. At the same time, exact replication is to be avoided so that there is no confusion in the average viewer’s mind as to which part of a building is historic and which is an addition. A sensitive addition, may introduce new materials in a traditional form or new, complementary forms constructed with traditional materials. In either approach, it is important to have some visual linkages and repetition of features between the old and new parts of the building. (See “Materials,” below.)

Setbacks for Building Extensions

In order to distinguish clearly between historic and later portions of a building:

additions and extensions are to be offset or recessed from the wall planes of the original building a minimum of one foot (1').

DO offset additions from front facades a minimum of 1 foot

Building Mass

The mass of a building is determined by a building’s, height, bulk, and shape.

In general, the mass of an addition will be smaller than the mass of the original building. The ARC may allow a larger addition if it determines this is required to make reuse of a

property economically feasible, and the new construction will be connected to the historic building by means of a small connector or hyphen and set back from the facades of both buildings in order to give them visual separation.

DO: use a “hyphen” to connect a new building (shaded) to an existing historic building

If, for some reason, the height of an addition must be taller than the original building,

the separation between them must be greater and the addition be set significantly farther back from any street right-of-way.


Additional Stories

While zoning in the district may allow buil