Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 3/13/2008 .\ )!iaft-/ Date Received: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE MAR 1 3 2008 STATE OF OREGON) ) ss. County of Lane ) Onginal SubmIttal I, Karen LaFleur, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows: 1. I state that I am a Program Technician for the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. 2. I state that in my capacity as, Program Technician, I prepared and caused to be . mailed copies of DRc2/JOg-DCX/20 -11 ~ _ ~ ~ - ~ R.u;f..pc) (See attachment "A") on _ < g/ / ==3 . 2008 addressed to (see ~:L Attachment B"), by causing said 'letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. ~~~V~ STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane ~ [~ , . 2008. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur, Program Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: ~.__,-__..;o.,~~;;:.~_~~;:-..::...-::::,.;;.;..,;.. '4 '"' rJFFICIAI. SEl>,L ~ . ,,' BREND.\ JONES I '~' NOTf\f\Y rU81,r; - OREGON f, cr'rv~r,IISSI()t\j W) 379218 ~ My r,(jMM!~,S!ON DP':"f:; i,;tA.Y 27, 2008 ~...~~.:..:Ii_~".t'... '"~:"-'~"'''';:-''';;r\~~~~~~~ "'~~~~.;..~~.-..~~ ~C~ lJ ~ ~/:Mo$ My Commission Expires: mSTORICAL REVIEW APPLICATION, TYPE I MINOR ALTERATIONS: ACCESSORY STRUCTURE DEMOLITION City of Springfield Development Services Depa" ~,.. ,ent 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 DATE: March 13,2008 File Number: DRC2008-00020 640 'c' Street, Springfield, Oregon Owner and Applicant: Teresa Hensley (Shannon Kellow) 640 C Street Springfield, OR 97477 Type I, mSTORICAL SITE PLAN DECISION: Pending review and approval by the Springfield Historical Commission, on March 11, 2008, staff recommends, as conditioned herein, the applicant's request for demolition of a fire-damaged accessory structure located at the rear of 640 C Street. SITE LOCATION: 640 'c' Street, Springfield, Oregon, Assessor Map 17-03-35-24 Tax Lot 11600, Washburne Historic District, Historic Overlay District. mSTORY OF APPLICATION PROCESS Property owner, Teresa Hensley, contacted staff on May 8, 2007 to discuss the demolition of a fire-damaged garage located on the rear of her property. Staff advised Hensley that there was an application process, which would require both a fee and a minimum of two, independent assessments of the condition of the garage. NATURE OF APPLICATION AND SITE INFORMATION: The applicant has submitted a proposal to demolish a fire-damaged garage because it is 1) structurally unsafe for use, and 2) the cost of repairs exceed both the economic and historical value of the structure. Two contractors have advised the applicant that the cost of the fire repairs; the cost of restoration repairs; and, the cost to put a foundation under the accessory structure, would far exceed 50 percent of the value and replacement costs of the structure. Research of office records by staff did not reveal any specific information pertaining to the garage. There is no 1984 survey information on the structure. The Summer 2003 Property Information up-date survey includes a notation that refers to the garage as an "associated resource c.1924 garage". Staff did not fmd any historical survey records that describe the style or materials used in the garage. No records were found that described the condition of the garage prior to, or after, the 1998 fire damage. The 1998 fire originated next door in the neighbor's garage at 626 'c' Street. The west end of the applicant's structure and the roof were severely damaged. The roof of the 1 structure has been covered with heavy plastic for the last 10 years and no repairs have been initiated during that time. The structure is beginning to lean off center. Staff photographed the garage on February 12,2008. It is a wooden structure approximately 19' x 25'; there are no windows; there is an 8' door that opens onto the alley (north elevation); on the east elevation there is another 8' opening that is boarded up with plywood; there is a door on the south elevation; it is single-story with a gable roof and wood, 4" lap siding. REVIEW DECISION: After review by the Springfield Historical Commission on March 11, 2008, the applicant's request to demolish the garage was approved as conditioned herein. The Commission's March 11, 2008 decision is for demolition and disposal of the existing fire-damaged accessory structure, only; this decision does not extend to construction of a new garage. New construction will require a Type II Historical Site Plan Review. REVIEW PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA mSTORICAL REVIEW. TYPE I Procedural Finding #1: Pursuant to SDC Section 5.1.125, Type I decisions are made by the Director without public notice and without a public hearing; however, SDC Section 3.3-100 states: The regulations of the overlay district shall supplement the regulations of the underlying zoning district. In cases where the regulations conflict, the overlay district regulations shall supersede the underlying zoning district regulations. Staff, as representative of the Director, has made recommendations to the Historical Commission regarding the applicant's proposal and the Commission, pursuant to SDC Section 3.3-915 C 1, has reviewed and approved, as conditioned, the applicant's request. Procedural Finding #2: Pursuant to SDC Section 3.3-905 the purpose ofSDC 3.3-900 is to encourage the restoration, preservation, and adaptive use of the City of Springfield's Historic Landmark Structures and Sites. Furthermore, Section 3.3-900 implements the historic policies of the Metro Plan, the Washburne Historic Landmark District, Chapter I of the Springfield Code (1965), and OAR Chapter 660. Procedural Finding #3: Pursuant to SDC Section 3.3-910 A, all structures and sites within the Washburne Historic Landmark District are subject to the regulations ofSDC 3.3-900. CRITERIA OF REVIEW AND APPROVAL : Procedural Finding #4: Pursuant to SDC Section 3.3-915 C 1, demolition of an accessory structure shall be reviewed under a Type I procedure. 2 Procedural Finding #5: Pursuant to SDC Section 3.3-915 C 1, on March 7, 2008 the applicant submitted a Type I application as directed by staff, which was presented to the Springfield Historical Commission on March 11, 2008. PROCEDURAL REVIEW CRITERIA FOR DEMOLITION OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE Springfield Development Code Section 3.3-950 Demolition Standards. Criteria (A) through (C) apply to demolition of historic landmark structures within the H-OVERLAY DISTRICT. R~vi.~w Criteria (A): (SDC Section 3.3-950 A) No demolition permit will be granted for any Historic Landmark site or structure unless the owner has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Historical Commission that one of the following criteria applies: Criteria A-I: The condition of the Historic Landmark Structure constitutes a serious and immediate threat to the safety of the public or occupants, which cannot be eliminated without repairs that would exceed 50 percent of the value of the structure itself. Criteria A-2: The property owner has demonstrated that there would be no reasonable long-term economic benefit from preservation of the Historic Landmark structure. In making this determination, the owner shall demonstrate that all potential uses or adaptive uses for the Historic structure have been thoroughly examined. . Finding #4: After the 1998 fire, the applicant covered the roof of the garage with heavy plastic to prevent further weather damage. In June of 2007 the applicant had the garage inspected by two licensed contractors. Both contractors agreed that due to years of neglect of the c.1924 structure and due to the damage caused by the 1998 fire, the structure was not only a safety hazard, but that repairs would exceed 50 percent of the value of the structure itself. The contractors estimated that it would cost approximately $30,000.00 to install a concretejloor, replace the necessary structural members, replace the roof, and scrape and paint the exterior lap siding. Criteria A -1 has been met because the garage has been determined to be unsafe andfire-damage repair costs will exceed 50 percent of the value of the structure itself. . Finding #5: Prior to the fire, it is presumed by staff that the garage was in need of extensive structural repairs due to the deterioration of the roof and interior weather damage. The structure did not originally have a foundation and the ground-contact mud seal members are rotten. Consequently, any preservation and adaptive use of the garage would require a concrete foundation and replacement of 100 percent of the original structure's mud seals and lower siding. Criteria A-2 has been met because potential uses or adaptive uses require unreasonable economic costs due to extensive replacement of original materials. The end result would be a historic-looking garage reconstructed of all new 3 materials and partially covered with the original 4" lap siding. The applicant has an estimate of approximately $24,000.00 to demolish and replace the garage. Review Criteria (B): (SDC Section 3.3-950 B) If a Historic Landmark Site or Structure is permitted to be demolished, the property owner shall provide the IDstorical Commission with: Criteria B-1: Four sets of measured drawings prepared by a qualified draftsperson showing the primary floor plans and the primary exterior elevation. Criteria B-2: A set of photographs that document the exterior and interior details including significant architectural elements. · Finding #6: The applicant did not submit a measured drawing of the garage; however, she did submit an extensive set of photograph, which documents both the exterior and the interior details of the structure. Staff finds that both the applicant's photographs and the existing photographs that are in the office file are sufficient for historical purposes; therefore, both Criteria B-1 and Criteria B- 2 have been met. Review Criteria (C): The property owner shall also supply the IDstorical Commission with any artifact or other architectural element as identified by the Commission. The artifact or architectural element shall be carefully removed and delivered to the Commission in good condition to be used in future conservation work. . Finding #7: Criteria C does not apply because there are no artifacts or architectural elements of merit identified within or on the structure. CONCLUSION: The applicant's request for approval to seek a demolition permit to remove a fwe- damaged, deteriorating garage from the property at 640 'c' Street is hereby approved because it satisfies the criterion as listed herein. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE NEXT: Prior to any demolition of the garage, the applicant shall discuss the proposal with the Springfield Building Department and determine if a demolition permit is necessary. There is no appeal process for a Type I application; however, if the applicant is dissatisfied with this decision, a Type 2 application may be submitted and reviewed by the Historical Commission a second time. If the Historical Commission reaches the same decision, then the applicant may submit an Appeal to the Planning Commission. If additional information is required please contact Kitti Gale @ 726-3632 or after March 28, 2008, contact Supervisor, Linda Pauly @ 726-4608. 4 \ r , -.. , ~ .' - ........ --... '~!- , .1 ':r ;.~. ........ '- ~:J ~!;l; " , " """"- ~. ~ ~> , -:1'.; 't_" -;0 " > ' ",-C-'- ~' " ~ .. ~ t" '"' - , , , ( \ -. ~ ;: " ,. , , ~L : 17 f J ;1 I' . ~ r:.. .' J j ; : r t f I -~ , ..' SPRINGFIELD ttti I~' 1'.'J~"j:J:I li'l t1: I =1 ~ 'AI IJ:I.:{ ttlJ i' -~ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ~ 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 'S() Teresa Hensley (Shannon Kellow) 640 C Street Springfield, OR 97477 . .