The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNotice PLANNER 7/19/2005 )JO-k AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF OREGON) ) ss. County of Lane ) I, Karen LaFleur, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows: 1. I state that I am a Clerk III for the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. 2. I state that in my capacity as Clerk III~ ~red and caused to be mailed copies of D~~~-~;......"1 i-Iv51"CJ..U.-, .u#L>~ee attachment nAn) on -7 ~~ ' 2005 addressed to (see Attachment Bn), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. K~~~~ c STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane - --~~ ~,.~--~ '~--'~'...,. ........""'--- ""- , ,I OFFICIAL SEAL , BRENDA JONES . , NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON' - f COMMISSION NO 379218 ' t~~~I~!!IRES MAY ~7.200~~ HISTORICAL REVIEW APPLICATION, TYPE I MINOR AL TERA TIONS: SITES AND STRUCTURES Date: July 19,2005 Case Number DRC2005-00055 833 'E' Street, Springfield, OR 17-03-35-13 TL 4800 Applicant and Owner: John Fischer 2197 Jeppesen Acres Road Eugene, OR 97401 Nature of Application: An application was submitted to the Springfield Historic Commission on July 7, 2005, to repair, replace in-kind, and rebuild as necessary the early 1910 Mill Cottage at 833 'E' Street that is located within the Washburn Historic District. Site Information: The property at 833 'E' Street, Assessor's Map 17-03-35-13 Tax Lot 4800 is located within the Washburne Historic Landmark District of the City of Springfield. The property is zoned Low Density Residential (LDR) and is r designated LDR on the Metro Plan and the Washburne Historic Landmark District Overlay. The dwelling unit was placed on the National RegIster of Historic Places Inventory in 1987 as a "PrImary Significant Contributing" historic resource on the District group listing. It is described in the National Register of HIstOrIC Places Inventory Nomination as Listing #130: Listing # 130: Early 1910's MzlI Cottage, this one-story, hipped roof residence displays the dominant features of many others built in this neighborhood in the period between 1912 and 1915. The front has been renwdeled and now has a ~ width recessed porch extending beyond one corner and covered by an extension of the house roof, which is a unique feature. Another unusual feature on the far;ade is a pair of large, nearly floor to ceiling picture windows. Aluminum sliding windows are seen elsewhere. Shake sldingjinished the walls. A central chimney has a metal flue cap. An attached garage has the same features as the house. The 1996 Historic Outbui~ding Survey Form describes the detached garage as a compatible, but non-contributing (post 1940) structure. It is referred to as a Minimal Tract style; rectangular; one story; concrete foundation; hipped and asphalt shingled roof; wood form structure with asbestos exterior shingles; and a modern garage door. , The Summer 2003 Washburne Historic DistrIct Property InformatlOn survey described the structure as still having fair integrity and being in fair condition. The Mill cottage has a hipped roof with wood shingles, raked shake siding materials, fixed-pane wood and aluminum slider windows, and a front porch that has been changed to include porch rails. HISTORICAL SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA SDC 30.040(3) The following minor alterations of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall be reviewed under Type I procedures: (c) Replacement of damaged exterior features with virtually identical r materials; and, (g) Any similar alteration or use which dos not detract from the character of a Historic Landmark Site or Structure. The property owner/applicant describes his property as a 95-year-old structure that has seen many changes over the years. At their July 11,2005, public meeting, the Historic Commission agreed with the owner's description and his proposal to restore and repair the dwelling with the following comments: . Finding #1: SDC 30.040(3) requIres a site plan review for minor alterations and repairs to be reviewed under Type I procedures; therefore, this criterion has been met. - I Finding #2: SDC 30. 1 00(1) (/) states: "Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced. In the event replacement cannot be avoided, the new material shall match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture and visual qualities. . . " 2 Finding #3: Pursuant to SDC 30.100(1)(f), the applicant proposes to repair and replace damaged areas with materials that will match the original features in composition, design, color, texture and visual quaZzties I where possible; therefore, thIS criterlOn has been satisfied. General Discussion by the Historic Commission: Overall the applicant's proposal is acceptable as conditioned by the Commission. The restoration and replacement of the double-drop shiplap sidzng (with a three-inch reveal) in combinatlOn with wood shingles placed around the dwelling below average-window level IS acceptable. The Commission is supportive of repairs to the porch with either a knee wall or a razling. It is suggested that there be only two post on the porch (not the proposed 4), one placed at either end. The posts could be 6 x 6 boxed or 4 x 4 boxed posts. EIther would work with a knee wall or a railing. If a knee wall is used, it should be clad with wood shingles that match the siding on the lower portlOn of the house's exterior walls. (Note: The COlnlnission did not discuss the proposed railings going down the sides of the steps; however, Commissioner Corbin has advised staff that he recol1llnends the razls be omitted unless the applicant is satisfying a safety concern or requirement. Check with the Building Department for Huilding requIrements.) - The CommisslOn reconllnended the applicant's window Example #6. The vertical rectangular multi lights in the upper sash of Example #6 are more desirable than those shown in window Example #5, which are divIded into smaller squares. The CommIssion also 'highly' recommends that the upper lights be true divIded -lights and not the lattice clip-in style being offered by some window manufactures. Pella Windows and Northwest Door & Sash make good examples. Pella's is not a true divided light because they place a spacer between the panes of glass that mimics the 'old' look pretty well. This suggested design will cost more; however, it will be far more effectIve and appropriate in the two street-facing windows. The Commission recommends that the lower proportion of the,other single/double hung windows in both the garage and the house be larger than the upper portion (as also illustrated in the applicant's Example #6). The applzcant proposes to also include eliminating the window in the west wall of the existing garage and to change the size of one of the window in 3 the garage's south wall, which were all installed after the original construction. The CO/7unission agrees that relocation and replacements of these two garage windows with location, dimensions, and SIze to match the existing garage windows would be beneficial to the structure's over-all appearance. CONCLUSION: The Commission requests that the applicant report to staff regardzng selection of l1'la teria Is, SIze, and replacements prior to commel1cing the repair/replacement proJect. In particular, the fi~ont porch re-design and repairs will be Zzke the 'greeting card' 'of this project for the neIghborhood and the CommisslOn would like to see the applicant's finalized drawing/sketch Ideas prior to implementation. . Condition #1: Provide the Historical Commission with a minimum of two photographs of all elevations of the dwelling after repairs/replacements. Thank you for the opportunity to review your application and update the Historic Commission's files on your property. If you have additional question regarding the application review process contact Kitti Gale at 726- 3632. 4 ~.fJf!J!{Xi(~~- ~ ~..."" -...... <> ,.,~."i: ___~~1-~1; :::_~ DEVELOPJIJIENT SERVICES PLANNING DEPARTMENT 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 John Fischer 2197 Jeppesen Acres Road Eugene, OR 97401 -j?;>