HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 Joint Historic Commission Meeting AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 10/20/2014
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Molly Markarian/DPW Staff Phone No: 726-4611
Estimated Time: 45 min
S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Encourage Economic Development and
Revitalization through Community Partnerships
ITEM TITLE: JOINT HISTORIC COMMISSION MEETING
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Hold joint work session with Historic Commission.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
City Council Operating Procedures Section IV 6.4 states that Commission member liaisons are responsible for making an annual report of the Commission’s activities
to the City Council. This meeting fulfills that requirement.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: CLG Audit Report
Attachment 2: Historic Preservation Survey Report Attachment 3: PowerPoint Presentation
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
In 2009, the City Council and Springfield Historic Commission established a new schedule for communication to better align Commission activities with Council
goals and other City initiatives, resulting in biennial joint work sessions. The
Historic Commission applies for Certified Local Government grant funding from the State Historic Preservation Office to support its activities and matches that
financial support with in-kind staff and volunteer time.
Every four years, the National Park Service asks that State Historic Preservation
Offices (SHPO) visit with its partners to talk about their programs. In September, SHPO conducted its audit of the Springfield Certified Local Government (CLG) program. Attachment 1 outlines SHPO’s assessment of the program.
Since the last joint Council/Historic Commission work session (September 2012), the Historic Commission applied for and received $13,000 in grant funds to support
its activities from April 2014-August 2015. The Commission will report to Council on its accomplishments from the last joint meeting to date, present the findings of a
community survey on Historic Preservation that the Commission conducted in
Summer 2014, and initiate a conversation regarding observed limitations of Springfield’s Historic Overlay District in ensuring efficient and effective
implementation of the City’s historic preservation policies.
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 2
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 2
Prepared for the Springfield Historic
Commission
by Jeff Kernen, MCRP
September 2014
Historic Preservation Survey Report
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 21
1
Key Findings
• Of the 215 survey respondents, 46% said they own property in the Washburne Historic District, 10% note that they work in the District, 8% rent, and 39% do not own, work, or rent in the District
• 46% of respondents identified the Washburne Historic District as their favorite historic place in Springfield
• When asked if Springfield’s history is important to its future 87% agreed or strongly
agreed
• 78% of participants agreed that City Council should prioritize supporting the preservation
of Springfield’s historic places
• 78% of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that regulating exterior changes of buildings to maintain the historic character of the Washburne Historic District is
important
• Less than one quarter of respondents (38) had used the Washburne Historic District design and review process, 82% of those 38 respondents own property in the District
• Only 14% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that the design and review process
should be more strict
• Respondents were not in favor of fencing being a design requirement: 42% of
respondents—all of whom had used the design and review process—disagreed or
strongly disagreed that fencing should be a design requirement
• Respondents were also not in favor of landscaping being a design requirement, 47% of
participants—again, all of whom had used the design and review process—disagreed or
strongly disagreed that landscaping should be a requirement
• Common themes in participants’ responses to the open-ended “Additional Comments for
the Springfield Historic Commission” question included:
o General support for historic preservation o Suggestions about the design and review process o Requests for efforts to be focused upon other concerns outside of the Washburne
Historic District
o Suggestions that Washburne Historic District restrictions are burdensome
o Land use concerns regarding rentals and businesses
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 21
2
Table of Contents
Key Findings ...................................................................................................................................1
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................3
Basic Demographics .......................................................................................................................3
Importance of Springfield’s History ............................................................................................3
Historic Review and Regulation Process .....................................................................................6
Historic Review Process Clarity and Helpfulness Scale ..............................................................7
Select Findings Based Upon Participant Attributes ...................................................................7
Comments for the Historic Commission ......................................................................................8
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................9
Appendix A: Frequency Tables ..................................................................................................10
Appendix B: Question 14 Scale and Analysis ............................................................................13
Appendix C: Selected Questions Crosstabulated by Participant Attributes ..........................15
Appendix D: Additional Comments ...........................................................................................16
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 21
3
Introduction
The City of Springfield, Oregon and the Springfield Historic Commission developed a survey to
assess the community’s opinions on historic preservation and the historic review process and requirements. The survey was primarily administered online and was promoted through City of
Springfield distribution lists and social media. The Historic Commission administered the
survey door-to-door in the Washburne Historic District (WHD) and mailed the survey to all
property owners who do not live within the WHD. The results of the survey are presented here,
focusing upon the analysis of the community’s opinions of historic preservation and the design review process and requirements.
The survey contained 17 total questions, several of which having multiple components. In total,
215 people responded to the survey, although not everyone completed all of the questions.
Accordingly, some questions contain all 215 respondents’ answers but several other questions have a much smaller response rate; this explains any discrepancies in the total respondents for
any question.
Basic Demographics: Who Answered the Survey?
The survey did not ask distinct demographic questions; however, a few questions identified the
characteristics of participants who are actively tied to Springfield. Those characteristics are
reported below.
Eighty-five percent of respondents (179 people) reported that they live in or own property in Springfield (Appendix Table 5). Respondents were asked about their engagement with historic
properties (properties built from 1850 to 1965): 55% (118 people) stated they owned a historic
property, while 30% (65 people) selected that they neither rented, owned, nor worked in a
historic property (Appendix Table 6). When asked specifically about their relationship to
property in the WHD, 47% (102 people) stated they owned property in the WHD, whereas 39% (83 people) selected that they neither rented, owned, nor worked in the WHD (Appendix Table
6).
Pertaining to the review process and requirements for exterior changes to the buildings in the
WHD, participants were asked whether or not they are aware of the process and whether they had used the process. Fifty-nine percent reported (127 people) that they are aware of the design
review process, but only 24% (38 people) noted that they had used it (Appendix Table 8).
Importance of Springfield’s History
The survey asked respondents several questions related to the importance of Springfield’s history
and its historical places. First, the community was asked to identify their favorite historic place
in Springfield. Figure 1 shows that almost half of participants (46%, 96 people) identify the
WHD as their favorite historic place. Also, more than a quarter of respondents (26%, 55 people)
selected Dorris Ranch. The remaining selections of significant size were the Downtown Buildings at 17% (36 people) and the Museum at 7% (15 people), (see Appendix Table 1 and
Figure 1 for a breakdown of all other responses). When asked if Springfield’s history is
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 21
4
Figure 1. Favorite Historical Place important to its
future, participants overwhelmingly answered that they
either agree or
strongly agree:
Appendix Table 2 shows that 61% (131 people)
strongly agree and
26% (55 people)
agree. Participants were
asked whether
historical places
*Booth Kelly(x2), Springfield(x2), Springfield Buick, Washburne Café
and buildings bring value to Springfield’s livability, economy, tourism, and downtown. Figure 2
displays participants’ answers, demonstrating that respondents overwhelmingly agree that historical places and buildings bring value to downtown (86%) and livability (82%). Regarding
tourism (71%) and economy (69%) participants agree that historical places and building bring
value, but not as much as the other two areas. Consistent with the answers to the value of
historical places and buildings, as shown in Figure 3, when asked if the City Council should
prioritize supporting the preservation of Springfield’s historic places, respondents mostly agreed (78%, 165 people).
A number of questions focused specifically upon participants’ relationship with and opinion
towards the WHD. When asked about their familiarity with the WHD, 71% of respondents (152
people) noted their familiarity with the district, while 27% (57 people) reported that they are
Figure 2. Value of Historic Places Figure 3. Council Should Prioritize Preservation
46%
7%
26%
17%
1%
3%*
Washburne
Neighborhood
Springfield Museum
Dorris Ranch
Historic Downtown
Buildings
Springfield School
District Buildings
Other
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 21
5
somewhat familiar. Only 2% (4 people) indicated that they are unfamiliar with the WHD
(Appendix Table 7).
More specifically, participants were asked questions about the
WHD’s character and how they
felt about the maintenance of that
character. Sixty percent of
respondents (129 people) strongly agreed that the historic character
of the WHD is important
(Appendix Table 7 and Figure 4).
Though over two-thirds of
respondents believe that the WHD is maintaining its character, only
14% (30 people) strongly agreed
(Appendix Table 7 and Figure 5).
When asked whether regulating exterior changes of buildings to
maintain the historic character of
the WHD is important, participants
overwhelmingly agreed: 40% of
participants (85 people) indicated that they agreed and 38%
(80people) strongly agreed
(Appendix Table 7 and Figure 6).
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Figure 4. The Historic Character of the Washburne Historic District is Important
Figure 5. The Washburne Historic District is Maintaining its Historic Character
Figure 6. Regulating Exterior Changes of Buildings to Maintain the Historic Character of the Washburne
Historic District is Important
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 21
6
Historic Review and Regulation Process
The final section of the survey shifted to participants’ familiarity and opinion of the historic
design review and regulation process. First, respondents were asked if they were aware of the review process and requirements for exterior changes to buildings within the Historic Overlay
District. Appendix Table 8 shows that 59% (127 people) answered that they were aware. Of
those who selected yes, respondents were asked if they had used the process and only 24% (38
people) indicated that they had (Appendix Table 8).
The participants who had used the process were then asked several questions about both the
process and guidelines, along with possible process and guideline changes. Figure 7
demonstrates the breakdown of each of those questions. Of the questions regarding the design
review and regulation process, five were oriented toward assessing the helpfulness and clarity of
the process, while four were about possible changes in design requirements (Appendix Table 9).
Of the questions about helpfulness and clarity, the most striking findings are that 75% of
respondents (27 people) either agree or strongly agree that City staff is helpful, while only 36% (12 people) agree or strongly agree that the process is easy. Of the questions pertaining to
possible changes in design requirements, 14% of participants (5 people) agree or strongly agree
that design requirements should be more strict. Conversely, 43% of respondents (15 people)
agree or strongly agree that design requirements should be less strict. Respondents were
relatively split on whether fencing should be included in design requirements: 39% of participants agreed or strongly agreed, while 42% disagreed or strongly disagreed. The inclusion
of landscape in design requirements was more polarized with 47% of respondents disagreeing or
strongly disagreeing, and 31% of respondents agreeing or strongly disagreeing (Appendix Table
9).
0%25%50%75%100%
Process is clear
Process is easy
Commission helpful
City staff helpful
Design requirements understandable
Design requirements should be more strict
Design requirements should be less strict
Design requirements should include fencing
Design requirements should include landscape
Percent Strongly Agree
Percent Agree
Percent Neutral
Percent Disagree
Percent Strongly Disagree
Figure 7. Review Process and Design Requirements for the Washburne Historic District
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 21
7
Historic Review Process Clarity and Helpfulness Scale
To understand how specific categories of people feel about the clarity and helpfulness of the review process and requirements, a scale based on respondents’ answers to the first five questions in Question 14 was created.1 A scale was created for this particular series of related
questions because such a measure can reflect a more comprehensive picture about feelings
toward the design and review process that individual answers cannot. Question 14 asked
respondents about the helpfulness and clarity of the design review process and design requirements for exterior changes to buildings in the Historic Overlay District. The answers to
these questions were given a value of 1 to 5 based on the five point response scale in the
questions. The lowest an individual could score was five, provided they answered all five
questions, and the highest was 25 (Appendix Tables 10 and 11).
The total number of survey participants who answered Question 14 was 36 people. Scale
characteristics show the lowest score was five and the highest score was 25, while the average
score was 16.9 (Appendix Table 11). The scores of the scale were placed into categories
indicating the degree of agreement with the questions: low (5-14), medium (15-19), and high
(20-25). The Historic Review Process Clarity and Helpfulness Scale was applied to the few demographic questions in the survey to understand differences in those participants’ scores.
Overall, a majority of participants who lived in Springfield, owned historic property, owned
WHD property, and used the historic review process possessed scores in the ‘medium’ category,
but scores also skewed towards a ‘high’ level of satisfaction. This indicated that people were
generally pleased with the helpfulness and clarity of the design review process. Possibly due to the small number of people who had used the review process (36 people) and the overlap
between the respondents who owned historic property and owned property in the WHD, there
were no notable differences in scores among the demographic categories (Appendix Table 12).
As indicated by the respondents, findings from the scale demonstrate that the design review
process is generally clear and easy to use, and that the commission and city staff is helpful. Select Findings Based Upon Participant Attributes
Question 14 also asks participants about design requirements and if there should be changes.
Specifically, respondents were asked if the requirements should be stricter, include fencing, and include landscaping. In order to understand how owners felt about these questions, the answers
to Question 14 were filtered through those who owned or lived in Springfield, owned a historic
property, or owned in the WHD (questions 5, 6b, and 7b). The results indicate that there was not
a lot of variation in their answers, and that the breakdown of responses was similar to the results
without the filters applied (Appendix Table 13).
Next, Question 2 was filtered through questions 5, 6b, 7b, and 13. Question 2 asks participants to
indicate how important they believe Springfield’s history to be to its future. Those who indicated
that they did not own historic property (73% for those who do not own historic property and 52%
1 The five questions ask opinions about the design review process and design requirements for exterior changes to buildings in the WHD. Respondents are asked to provide their level of agreement with the following statements: the process is clear; the process is easy; the Springfield Historic Commission is helpful; the City staff is helpful; and the
design requirements are understandable.
Attachment 2, Page 8 of 21
8
for those who do) or a WHD property (73% for those who do not own WHD property and 48%
for those who do) were more likely to strongly agree that Springfield’s history is important to its
future (Appendix Table 14). Also, those who selected they had not used the review process were
slightly more likely to agree or strongly agree that Springfield’s history is important to its future (Appendix Table 14).
Finally, Question 4 was also filtered through questions 5, 6b, 7b, and 13. Question 4 asks how
much participants agree with whether the City Council should prioritize supporting the
preservation of Springfield’s historic places. Answers among the demographic questions, once again, did not vary greatly (Appendix Table 15).
Comments for the Historic Commission
Respondents were asked if they had any additional comments for the Historic Commission. Seventy-five respondents chose to add comments. Of those 75 comments, 70 are relevant for
analysis (a list of all responses is provided in Appendix D, comments are unedited for errors). To
better understand the nature of the responses, comments were coded and placed into themed
categories. Analysis of the viable comments revealed the emergence of five main themes running
throughout the responses; though a small number of comments stood on their own and did not fit in to the larger families of categories.
One of the two most common themes was a show of support for historic preservation (21
comments). Most comments regarding support were simple. For example, one respondent wrote
“Keep the history alive,” while another stated “Keep up the great work!” The other most common theme (21 comments) was a focus on the design and review process. Within these
comments, six responses focused upon a desire for stronger regulation, with one respondent
noting that, “The code should have more teeth.” Other respondents had suggestions about the
enforcement of paint color, lawns, landscaping, and general design standards. Conversely, two
other respondents in this category opposed more regulation. Finally, four people requested that the design review process be more clear, and three suggested that incentives should be provided
for property upgrades.
The next most common themes both possessed nine comments each. One of the themes is a suggestion to focus efforts on other concerns outside of the WHD. Four commenters made
specific suggestions about events, the museum, and art. Three respondents noted that there are
other historic assets in the City of Springfield, besides the WHD, to which attention should be
paid. Finally, two commenters suggested that the City focus upon the future, rather than history. The other theme with nine comments is the view that WHD restrictions are seen as a burden. These comments suggested that restrictions are a financial burden, helping to keep homes in
disrepair. Commenters also noted that restrictions make materials more expensive than owners
can afford. One respondent, encapsulating the tone of the theme, wrote, “It seems that many
Washburne properties are falling into disrepair, and the deferred maintenance is causing further damage. Applying the historic rules to all the residences could possibly be causing owners to
neglect the property due to some of the significant costs that go along with complying.”
Finally, the last major theme was concerns about land use (6 comments), particularly regarding
rentals and unwanted businesses. Respondents mentioned apartments and the west end of the
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 21
9
Washburne district as being either an eyesore or bringing down the value of the WHD. Also,
respondents were concerned with allowing too many businesses into the WHD which they said
may change the historical character of the neighborhood.
Conclusion
Of the 215 participants in the historic preservation survey, the majority agree that Springfield’s history is important to its future. Additionally, the idea that the Springfield City Council should prioritize historic preservation is strongly supported. In general, respondents demonstrate a solid
interest in keeping Springfield’s history intact, agreeing that historic places and buildings can
add social and economic value to the community.
With respect to the Washburne Historic District, most participants believe that the historic character of the WHD is important, though fewer respondents believe that the District is
maintaining its historic character. This viewpoint is reflected in the open-ended questions: even
when commenters had positive comments regarding Springfield’s history, the WHD, or the
Historic Commission, there was still a significant amount of suggestions and concerns regarding how the design and review process and other facets of policy affect the WHD’s historic character.
Less than a quarter of participants report having used the design and review process. Of those
respondents, the majority report that they found the process to be clear and the staff helpful. A small amount of participants wanted the process to be stricter, and only a minority agreed that the design requirements should include either fencing or landscaping. Due to the small number
of respondents who had used the design and review process, if the Commission is interested in
obtaining more information about the habits and opinions of the users, a targeted survey of those
users should be employed.
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 21
10
Appendix A: Frequency Tables
Appendix Table 1: Responses to Question 1
Percent Frequency
1. What is your favorite historic place in Springfield? Washburne Neighborhood 45.7% 96
Springfield Museum 7.1 15
Dorris Ranch 26.2 55
Historic Downtown Buildings 17.1 36
Springfield School District Buildings 1.0 2
Other 2.9 6
Total 100% 210
Appendix Table 2: Responses to Question 2
Percent Frequency
2. Springfield's history is important to its future. Strongly Agree 61.2% 131
Agree 25.7 55
Neutral 8.9 19
Disagree 3.7 8
Strongly Disagree 0.5 1
Total 100% 214
Appendix Table 3: Responses to Question 3
3. Springfield's historic places and
buildings bring value to Springfield's…
Percent Number of People Agree Neutral Disagree Total
Livability 82.2% 16.0% 1.9% 100% 213
Economy 69.0 23.3 7.6 100 210
Tourism 71.4 22.4 6.2 100 210
Downtown 86.1 9.6 4.3 100 208
Appendix Table 4: Responses to Question 4
Percent Frequency
4. City Council should prioritize supporting the preservation of Springfield's historic places.
Agree 77.5% 165
Neutral 16.9 36
Disagree 5.6 12
Total 100% 213
Attachment 2, Page 11 of 21
11
Appendix Table 5: Responses o Question 5
Percent Frequency
5. Do you live in or own property in Springfield?
Yes 85.2% 179
No 14.8% 31
Total 100% 210
Appendix Table 6: Responses to Questions 6 and 7
Percent Number of People
6. Do you live/work in and/or own a historic (1850-1965) property? (mark all that apply)
Rent
11.6% 25
Own
54.9 118
Work
12.6 27
None of these
30.2 65
7. What is your relationship to the Washburne Historic District? (mark all that apply)
Rent
8.4% 18
Own
47.4 102
Work 9.8 21
None of these 38.6 83
Appendix Table 7: Responses to Questions 8 through 11
Percent Frequency
8. What is your familiarity with the Washburne Historic District? Familiar 71.4% 152
Somewhat familiar 26.8 57
Unfamiliar 1.9 4
Total 100 213
9. The historic character of the Washburne Historic District is important.
Strongly Agree 60.3% 129
Agree 27.6 59
Neutral 8.4 18
Disagree 2.3 5
Strongly Disagree 1.4 3
Total 100 214
10. The Washburne Historic District is
maintaining its historic character.
Strongly Agree 14.1% 30
Agree 56.8 121
Neutral 22.1 47
Disagree 6.1 13
Strongly Disagree 0.9 2
Total 100 213
11. Regulating exterior changes of buildings to
maintain the historic character of the Washburne Historic District is important.
Strongly Agree 37.7% 80
Agree 40.1 85
Neutral 12.7 27
Disagree 5.7 12
Strongly Disagree 3.8 8
Total 100 212
Attachment 2, Page 12 of 21
12
Appendix Table 8: Responses to Questions 12 and 13
Percent Frequency
12. Are you aware of the review process and
requirements for exterior changes to buildings within the Washburne Historic District?
Yes 59.3% 127
No 40.7 87
Total 100 214
13. If yes, have you ever used the process?
Yes 23.9% 38
No 76.1 121
Total 100 159
Appendix Table 9: Responses to Question 14
14. Design review process and design requirements
for exterior changes to buildings in the
Washburne Historic District
Percent
Number
of People
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Total
Process is clear 11.1% 50.0% 22.2% 8.3% 8.3% 100% 36
Process is easy 5.6 27.8 36.1 13.9 16.7 100% 36
Commission helpful 19.4 25.0 19.4 19.4 16.7 100% 36
City staff helpful 33.3 41.7 11.1 8.3 5.6 100% 36
Design requirements understandable 11.1 50.0 22.2 11.1 5.6 100% 36
Design requirements should be more strict 5.6 8.3 22.2 36.1 27.8 100% 36
Design requirements should be less strict 25.7 17.1 28.6 14.3 14.3 100% 36
Design requirements should
include fencing 8.3 30.6 19.4 19.4 22.2 100% 36
Design requirements should include landscape 5.6 25.0 22.2 22.2 25.0 100% 36
Attachment 2, Page 13 of 21
13
Appendix B: Question 14 Scale and Analysis Appendix Table 10: Washburne Historic District Process Clarity and Helpfulness Scale (5 to 25 pts)
Points Assigned
Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
14a The process is clear. 1 2 3 4 5
14b The process is easy. 1 2 3 4 5
14c The Springfield Historic Commission is helpful. 1 2 3 4 5
14d The City staff is helpful. 1 2 3 4 5
14e The design requirements are
understandable. 1 2 3 4 5
Appendix Table 11: Scale Characteristics
Lowest Score 5
Highest Score 25
Average Score (Mean) 16.9
Most Common Scores (Mode) 16 & 19
Median 18
Total Number of People who Answered all
Q14 Questions 36
Appendix Table 12: WHD Process Clarity and Helpfulness Scale by Participant Characteristics
Percent
Low
(5 to 14 points)
Medium
(15 to 19 points)
High
(20 to 25 points) Number of People
Q5 Participants who live in or own property
in Springfield 24.2% 48.5% 27.3% 33
Q6b Participants who own a historic property 25.8 48.4 25.8 31
Q7b Participants who own property in the WHD 26.7 43.3 30.0 30
Q13 Participants who have used the review process for the WHD 22.2 47.2 30.6 36
Attachment 2, Page 14 of 21
14
Appendix Table 13: Q14 f-i Design Requirement Questions by Participant Demographics
Q5 Participants who live in or own property in Springfield
(Q14 f-i) Design
Requirements should…
Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Number
of People
Be more strict 6.1% 6.1% 18.2% 39.4% 30.3% 33
Be less strict 28.1 18.8 21.9 15.6 15.6 32
Include fencing 9.1 27.3 18.2 21.2 24.2 33
Include landscape 6.1 21.2 21.2 24.2 27.3 33
Q6b
Participants who own a historic property
(Q14 f-i) Design Requirements should… Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Number of People
Be more strict 6.5% 6.5% 16.1% 38.7% 32.3% 31
Be less strict 30.0 16.7 20.0 16.7 16.7 30
Include fencing 9.7 22.6 19.4 22.6 25.8 31
Include landscape 6.5 19.4 19.4 25.8 29.0 31
Q7b Participants who own property in the WHD
(Q14 f-i) Design
Requirements should…
Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Number
of People
Be more strict 6.7% 6.7% 16.7% 36.7% 33.3% 30
Be less strict 31.0 13.8 20.7 17.2 17.2 29
Include fencing 10.0 23.3 20.0 20.0 26.7 30
Include landscape 6.7 16.7 23.3 23.3 30.0 30
Attachment 2, Page 15 of 21
15
Appendix C: Selected Questions Crosstabulated by Participant Attributes
Appendix Table 14: Q2 by Participant Demographics
Springfield’s history is important to its future (Q2)
Percent
Q5 Lives in or owns property in Springfield Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Frequency
Yes 60.3% 26.8% 8.4% 3.9% 0.6% 179
No 67.7% 22.6% 9.7% 0.0% 0.0% 31
Q6b
Owns a historic property
Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree
Strongly
Disagree Frequency
Yes 51.7% 33.1% 10.2% 4.2% 0.8% 118
No 72.9% 16.7% 7.3% 3.1% 0.0% 96
Q7b Owns property in the WHD Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Frequency
Yes 48.0% 35.3% 9.8% 5.9% 1.0% 102
No 73.2% 17.0% 8.0% 1.8% 0.0% 112
Q13
Has Used the Review
Process
Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree
Strongly
Disagree Frequency
Yes 55.3% 18.4% 21.1% 5.3% 0.0% 38
No 61.2% 26.4% 8.3% 3.3% 0.8% 121
Appendix Table 15: Q4 by Participant Demographics
City Council should prioritize supporting the preservation of Springfield’s historic places (Q4)
Percent
Q5 Lives in or owns property in Springfield Agree Neutral Disagree Frequency
Yes 86.7% 8.7% 4.6% 173
No 80.6% 16.1% 3.2% 31
Q6b Owns a historic property Agree Neutral Disagree Frequency
Yes 67.2% 25.0% 7.8% 116
No 76.6% 19.1% 4.3% 94
Q7b Owns property in the WHD Agree Neutral Disagree Frequency
Yes 66.3% 25.5% 8.2% 98
No 75.9% 19.6% 4.5% 112
Q13 Has Used the Review Process Agree Neutral Disagree Frequency
Yes 64.9% 24.3% 10.8% 37
No 72.0% 19.5% 8.5% 118
Attachment 2, Page 16 of 21
16
Appendix D: Additional Comments (Q15)
Appendix Table 16: Alphabetized Comments for Question 15
1
A few years back I started the planning process for an in-fill project in the historic district. After getting a
taste of what I would have to go through to satisfy the Historic Commission I cancelled the project. The requirements turned what would have been a financially feasible project into a financially foolish project.
I've also noticed that the in-fill projects that others have completed with the blessing of the Historic Commission look cheap and ugly compared to actual historic buildings. Modern materials and old designs
don't work well together. If you want to encourage historic preservation fine, but don't mandate it. That's evil.
2
Address environmentally friendly options -some regulation is good -metal roof as a material -process
looked daunting enought likely enought to be turned down so they just said screw it & didn't try seems arbitrary desision making over time
3
As a historic preservation graduate student living in the Washburne neighborhood, I appreciate the work
Springfield has done. I was drawn to the neighborhood and decided to rent there because of the historic character, and have quickly become attached. Although I'll be gone this summer, I'd like to get involved in
someway with the Springfield Historic Commission next year!
4 As long as property taxes, or city sewer/storm drain fees aren't affected, I'm all for it!
5 Attention should be paid to the less noteworthy but still historic aspects of Springfield. Industries,
neighborhoods other than Washburne.
6 Being new to the community, the downtown historic buildings and the Washburne Historic district were very important in my decision to live here. I think downtown Springfield has a lot of potential to bring in
new customers and new businesses if we optimize the city's historic look and appeal.
7 Bring more history into the museum and less art.
8 Design review processes (and therefore permits) within the Washburne District should not be delayed
because someone on the Historic Commission is on vacation.
9 Doesn't Like Simpons Mural
10 Ebbert United Methodist is an important feature in the Washburne District.
11
Feels district is top down & power over vs. couaboration and usibility We lover out house: Expensive to make upgrades Notifications are waste of time & money -privacy Look at Whitakar - that
neighaborhood is fun More than one way to do things Energy efficiency is important to us! It would be nice to have a resource guide a the city that would include contractors for specific services (lead paint &
windows) Assessory dwelling unit conversion
12 Good luck!
13
Holding nto historic sites regardless of their appearance or value can have a negative effect rather than
positive effect. Also, enforcement of current standards is lacking in the district, it's on a hit and miss basis and most times people come in for review after the fact and things are rubber stamped, rather than before
hand when the commission could have some input into the design.
14 I am proud of Springfield
15 I believe the Washburne Historical District should be composed of only single family dwellings. No
medium or high density.
16
I believe there needs to be balance between preserving historic design of buildings and allowing alteration to increase longevity - for example, some original designs of wooden porches lead to rot, and alternative
porch materials would last longer. Also, I would like the historic commission to assist historic homeowners in Washburne retain the ability to park on the street in front of their homes and not be limited
to 1 or 2 hour parking. These homes were built before garages were even built! Allowing parking would encourage these old homes to continue to be lived in by families. Do not restrict our parking on the streets
near downtown - the historic district is adjacent to downtown and there needs to be equal consideration to the residents as the businesses.
Attachment 2, Page 17 of 21
17
Appendix Table 16: Alphabetized Comments for Question 15 (continued)
17
I grew up in Springfield, and I have seen the changes that have happened over the years. I really appreciate honoring and remembering Springfield's past, and I do think that historic areas should be considered when
preparing for Springfield's future. In particular, the changes in downtown have been great! I love the attempts to bring business back to downtown, and I love the addition of new artwork while maintaining
older buildings. I think that the Springfield Museum could do a bit more to encourage locals to go; for instance, I haven't been there since I was a kid, largely because I don't know if there is anything new to see.
I love Dorris Ranch too! The Washburne District looks a little rundown nowadays, so maybe there could be more incentives to renovate properties. One suggestion I have is to bring back the Filbert Festival! It
was always a highlight of my childhood summers, and I loved being a part of Springfield traditions like the excursions to Dorris Ranch.
18
I have been a homeowner in the Washburne District for the last 8 years. My wife and I are proud of our
home and enjoy the neighborhood. The major negative in the Washburne District, IMO, is the number of rentals in the district. The majority of rentals are in disrepair and some appear to be on the verge of
collapse (see the two-story Victorian @ 7th & C). The overwhelming majority of homeowners do a great job of preserving the character and ambience of their homes thereby improving the neighborhood. I think
the Commission needs to look into ways of making landlords accountable for upgrades to their rentals, otherwise they continue to diminish well meaning efforts and property values of established homeowners.
19 I have lived in Springfield my entire 65 years. I have taught school for 20 years and worked for the City for
17 years and there is more to Springfield historically than the Washburn District
20
I have rented in the Washburne neighborhood for 12 years and I know many other long-term renters. I think preserving the historic character is important, but regulations should not be a burden to people who
want to make their homes here. If I ever do buy a home (which I hope to), I would like to continue to live in the Washburne area.
21
I hope that the commission is working with homeowners when it comes to regulating exterior changes to
homes/buildings. More education and help with architectural detail and range of appropriate colors is important in my opinion. Keep it less authoritarian regulation and more cooperative and educational.
22
I love historic buildings, I wouldn't live here if I didn't, but I believe the Historic Commission does more
harm than good. The idea that people who own houses in the neighborhood will buy what are now luxury grade materials (wood windows, wood siding) to create a facsimile of a working class neighborhood is
ridiculous. If the city truly wants that, it needs to offset the 5x increase in cost associated with creating high-end faux-working-class homes. Considerations of income, environmental sustainability and
neighborhood livability need to be considered, and if no one on the commission is qualified or interested in taking those factors into consideration, it should be disbanded. Current commissioners should search the
meeting minutes for '306 C' - and then take a walk past the house. No work was ever done. Ask yourselves, is the neighborhood better off because those commissioners held fast about wood windows?
Are the tenants in that house better off? are the property values in the neighborhood better off or worse off based on that decision? I don't live near that particular house, but now when I look at all of the houses in
the neighborhood that are in horrible states of disrepair, I imagine that there is a similar story in a previous set of meeting minutes about a property owner with limited means who is simply letting the house rot
because an affordable alternative was denied.
23 I support any efforts to maintain and preserve the older homes and buildings in Springfield and Glenwood.
24 I support efforts to preserve the Washburne Historical District as well as the historic character of Main
Street.
25 I think Springfield is doing a much better job promoting and caring for its historic resources than nearby Eugene - keep up (and improve upon) the good work!
26
I used to live in Washburne and loved it until the ganlgs began to take over the area on the west end. That
caused me to move to Thurston. Perhaps ridding the area of rentals like apartment buildings would be helpful.
27
I will be upgrading a home in the Washburne District that fell into disrepair over the years as a rental. I
have heard many stories from neighbors about difficulties with the city as they did their upgrades. These tales of unnecessary meddling in matters that have no impact on the historic value of the exterior are very
worrisome.
Attachment 2, Page 18 of 21
18
Appendix Table 16: Alphabetized Comments for Question 15 (continued)
28
I would like to see litter laws enforced, including eyesore properties. There are some beautiful homes that have been allowed to deteriorate, and there are yards and porches full of junk and trash. This is totally
unacceptable and completely disrespectful to the property itself as well as to the neighborhood. This must be dealt with, as I have seen other historic areas where this does not appear to be an issue. It does not take
money to keep one's property junk and trash free. It is a mindset that must change through encouragement or, if need be, through enforced laws. If these laws do not exist, then we need to create them.
29
I'm all for the preservation of historic places, but the existing limitations on materials are too strict and
don't make sense in many cases. For example, old & dysfunctional windows must be maintained or, if upgraded, must be replaced with identical materials (i.e., wood). We live in a modern time and if the
appearance is nearly the same, then modern materials should be allowed. New wood windows are too expensive and don't often maintain the historic detail.
30
It is important to balance our interest in preserving historical buildings with economic realities faced by
property owners... I think it would be very helpful to have a financial assistance mechanism in place to help folks keep things historic. Low interest loans for instance or grants in some cases. we are neighbors after
all... let's help each other
31
It seems that many Washburne properties are falling into disrepair, and the deferred maintenance is causing further damage. Applying the historic rules to all the residences could possible be causing owners to
neglect the property due to some of the significant costs that go along with complying. It seems that some of the design elements could be maintained while allowing modern materials. It seems odd that the overlay
applies to structures that are not historic. Is financial assistance available? and is there a property tax benefit for the properties in the neighborhood?
32 It seems that the policy of preserving the historic character of Springfield has really contributed to it's
positive growth and image.
33 It woudl be nice if grants were available to the property owners of any historic building or home where they can use it to preserve or improve the structure.
34
it's been a lot of years since we worked with the historic comm. but, it all seemed easy and with no
problems. Also, when it comes to fencing and landscaping i think every piece of property is unique and has to be looked at individually.
35 Keep em going
36 KEEP THE HISTORY ALIVE
37 Keep up the good fight. While watching out for historic property owner rights. Your doing a good job and
I'm excited to see what's next for your commision
38 Keep up the good work and provide a comprehensive walking/informational tour on-line for mobile devies and tourists/visitors that combines and enhances the past brochures.
39 Keep up the good work.
40 Keep up the great work!
41 Keep up the wonderful work
42 Like that downtown is improving
43 Lived in Eugene 1st & appreciate that their are more historic places left in Springfield especially
downtown.
44 Loves we are trying to preserve history
45 Make clear who is required for review - Be clear they are in the district & they are in review. Energy
efficiency & update them about it. In mail addressed to individual said these address.
46 My property...my decisions....spend your time and energy on that which positively affect something
47 Need more information about the Washburn District.
48 NO TAX BREAKS
49 Paint color if not regulated should be no purples or bright pinks.
Attachment 2, Page 19 of 21
19
Appendix Table 16: Alphabetized Comments for Question 15 (continued)
50 Pay attention to zoning. If zoning allows development that conflicts with the current character, it is difficult to preserve historic resources.
51 People do not appear to be following the fencing requirements in the Washburne neighborhood.
52
Please keep the Washburne district held to a higher standard. It's interesting, quiet and (mostly) attractive. Somehow it would be nice to get the owners of the more dilapitated/piecemealed homes who were
apparently granfathered in back in the 80's to clean up/fix/remove the poorly maintained aspects of theirproperties. Perhaps offer tax breaks or grants to those showing need & desire to improve.
53
Present a special show at museum of historic photos and items. Make more visible the location of original
"springs" of Springfield. Include info about native Americans who gathered here previous to founding of the "town" of Springfield. Include more recent "history" such as Springfield Creamery photos from the
1970's etc. Build on traditions of Springfield's farming community history and segway into present day developments such as Sprout providing a place for people to gather and share local produce, etc. Put on a
"Springfield HIstory Day", perhaps at Sprout or at Dorris Ranch. Have events which relate to farming traditions etc., hops production, cheese making. Include local food vendors, Planktown brewing, 100 mile
Bakery, etc. Emphasize local food movement and interest in fresh, local , organic produce. Include community gardens and Brattain's school garden.
54
I withdrew my house from the "historic" program about six years ago so I could make "well-considered"
exterior and interior changes without consulting the review board. As an interior desigor and art history graduate (master's degree) of the UO I trust my own aesthetic historical judgment on design issures,
although I confess that I made a bad color choice on exterior trim color around windows and front door. I toned this down soon afterward. I DO however, think that a historic review process is necessary - well, at
least important!
55 Really no landscape
56
Regulators that dont even live in the district, let alone the city, are overly restrictive and should not be
allowed to dictate homeowners use of their property when in compliance with current building codes. planning regs and historic reviews do not constitute building codes.
57 Some regulation is ok. Requiring expensive things make people no be able to do it.
58 Special landscaping characteristics should be promoted with Washburne property owners to further a cohesive and historic charm - such as entryway, gates/fences, sidewalk edging choices.
59 Springfield has the opportunity to become a vibrant modern city and should not prioritize historic building
unless they are functional in the modern era.
60
Springfield should focus on creating commerce like they are doing in the Gateway area, developing new modern neighorboods. The idea of proserving the Washburn District would be special if the homes were
build turn of the century or prior but 30's to 40's propertys are "Not" and never will be special like all antiqes only certain era's of product become valuable. It's like 1980's cars being held for investments.
They will never get the attention like the autos made in the 50's-60's, bottom line the historic value of the Washburn District is a total waste of time and valuable resources of the City of Springfield.
61 Support people in the historic district. It is different to live there than just any other place.
62 Thanks for doing the survey. Would like to know the proposed changes and rules for improving properties. Todd Peterson 234 10th St. Visitodd@yahoo.com
63 The City should consider regulating overgrown lawns.
64 The code should have more teeth. Make guidelines vs. requirements clear.
65
The Commission is not taking into account applications which deal with the character and density of the
historic home area. To wit, to allow the current building on D Street is out of place with neighborhood because of the size of the 2 level unit on such a small lot. I also feel that most areas west of 4th street
should be eliminated from the Washburne Historic District.
66 The Springfield Museum should remove the stucco and look like it used to.
67 This is an important tool for gathering information about how interested citizens are about their city's
resources.
Attachment 2, Page 20 of 21
20
Appendix Table 16: Alphabetized Comments for Question 15 (continued)
68
Washburne District is a tremendous asset for the City of Springfield. There is a growing trend of young professionals and families moving from Eugene to Springfield or buying their first home in Springfield due
to its affordability, access to recreation and local shops, and overall character. Most young professionals thinking of looking to buy or rent in Springfield turn towards the Washburne Neighborhood first. There is a
wonderful sense of place in the Washburne because of well-cared for historic homes, streetscapes and mature vegetation, and alternative transportation options.
69 We are concerned about businesses moving in our neighborhood changing the historical aspect of our area.
70 We need to be able to make repairs and renovations in a more timely manner, with less paperwork. A FAQ on the website might help, as well as an easy-to-find web page.
71
When formation of the district was being considered, after checking it's purpose at City Hall, we strongly
supported it's formation after being told it's purpose was to ENCOURAGE MAINTAINING HISTORIC APPEARANCES and it would not be a "restrictive" ordinance.. Had I known then how it would effect our
home ownership, I would have strenuously opposed the district's formation. Later, when replacing a rotting front porch, our contractor was told that, in order to get a building permit, we would have to submit
an engineers drawing or blueprint...then when he took in that (very expensive) set of plans, the person at the counter said "Gee, this is neat. We usually just get a sketch on a piece of scratch-paper". As the project
progressed,we were told we had to carefully remove and re-use the original siding rather than replacing with new materials with the same appearance. Another time, wanting to replace a fence, when we applied
for a permit, we were told our planned fencing materials didn't comply with Washburne Standards. We explained our wishes/needs and were told that someone would get back to us with some suggested ideas.
After four months without hearing,we inquired about progress and were told "we sent an inquiry to This Old House TV program for ideas, but they never answered". ...that was all the help we got. Is it any
wonder that we're a bit negative about the whole Historic District concept? I do suspect that most of our bad experiences are the result of one individual's (I don't think she's in that position now) interpretation of
Washburne's intents, purposes and requirements. However, I truly believe that the purpose should be to encourage and promote the historic appearance of buildings, perhaps rewarding with some tax incentives
rather than mandating procedures that can be very expensive.
72 Where is the survey about the library hours? That is what I was looking for.
73
While I agree that maintaining the Washburn district is a priority as far as exteriors go there should be a
expedited process for people who want to update features to make the home energy efficient or needing to remove "eyesores". I have seen many outbuildings on properties that should just be removed because they
are just so dilapidated.
74 Yaay History! Houses Rock!
75 You should use the SurveyMonkey logic feature in your questions so that people who do not select "yes"
are not brought to the "yes" screen. Maybe next time...
Attachment 2, Page 21 of 21
Report to Council
SPRINGFIELD HISTORIC COMMISSION
City Council Work Session
October 20, 2014 @ 6pm
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 10
Agenda
SPRINGFIELD HISTORIC COMMISSION
Accomplishments Oct 2012 - Present
Discussion
•Survey results
•Code issues – revision and enforcement
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 10
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Oct ‘12 - Present
SPRINGFIELD HISTORIC COMMISSION
1.Reviewed proposals for modifications to historic properties
2.Completed Reconnaissance Level Survey of Willamette
Heights Neighborhood
3.Supported and promoted the Cottage Grove CLG wood
window workshop for contractors
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 10
Certified Local Government (CLG)
SPRINGFIELD HISTORIC COMMISSION
April 1, 2012 – August 31, 2013
Received $13,800 in CLG grant funds
Matched 1:1 with staff and volunteer time
April 1, 2014 – August 31, 2015
Awarded $13,000 in CLG grant funds
Matched 1:1 with staff and volunteer time
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 10
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Oct ‘12 - Present
SPRINGFIELD HISTORIC COMMISSION
4.Completed five Intensive
Level Surveys of
downtown buildings
5.Updated the Historic
Commission website
6.Repaired and replaced
Washburne District signs
7.Attend local, regional,
national conferences /
workshops
Attachment 3, Page 5 of 10
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Oct ‘12 - Present
SPRINGFIELD HISTORIC COMMISSION
8.Continued survey/inventory of
Springfield’s pre-1915 historic
properties
9.Passed CLG Audit
10.Conducted a survey regarding
the value of Springfield’s
historic properties and the
historic code
Attachment 3, Page 6 of 10
Survey Results
SPRINGFIELD HISTORIC COMMISSION
•215 respondents
•85% live in or own property in
Springfield
•55% own historic property
•47% own property in the
Washburne Historic District
•24% have used the design and
review process
Attachment 3, Page 7 of 10
Survey Results
SPRINGFIELD HISTORIC COMMISSION
•87% agreed or strongly agreed that Springfield’s
history is important to its future
•77% agreed that City Council should prioritize
preservation
•The value of historic places and buildings:
Attachment 3, Page 8 of 10
Survey Results
SPRINGFIELD HISTORIC COMMISSION
Historic Review and Regulation Process
•24% (38 respondents) had used the process
•75% agreed or strongly agreed that City staff was
helpful
•Only 36% agreed or strongly agreed the process is
easy
•Washburne Historic District Process Clarity and
Helpfulness Scale
•Only 14% agreed or strongly agreed that design
requirements should be more strict
Attachment 3, Page 9 of 10
Discussion
SPRINGFIELD HISTORIC COMMISSION
o Thanks to Tara and Molly for the amazing staff support
o New Council Liaison
o Commission Response to Survey
o Code Revision – the code is failing preservation
•Too slow, especially with limited staff
•Not clear
•Type I, II, III review - make these more clear and Type I objective
so it can be approved at the counter easily.
•Code enforcement – it is state law to enforce code, so it should be
enforceable Attachment 3, Page 10 of 10