HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication APPLICANT 5/10/2022;City of Springfield
Development & Public Works
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Historical Review Application
6NGFIELD
IL(4�
Application. -(Applicant. check one)
Historical Review Type I - Minor Alterations; Sites or Structures: ❑
Historical Review Type II - Major Alterations; Sites or Structures: x
Historical Review Type III:
Addition of a Site or Structure to the Historic Landmark Invento
Removal of a Site or Structure from the Historic Landmark Inventor
Demolition of Historic Land Mark Structures
Required Project Information (Applicant., complete this section)
5-915-7419 (Tim)
Applicant Name: Elizabeth & Timothy Halverson Phone:SV-513-5873g
Company: Fax:
Address: 621 5th Street Springfield, OR 97477
Applicant's Rep.:
Phone:
Company:
Fax:
Address:
Property Owner: Beth & Tim Halverson
541-915-7419(Tim)
Phone: 541-513-5873 Beth
Company:
Fax;
Address: 621 5th Street Springfield, OR 97477
ASSESSOR'S MAP NO: 17033524
TAX LOT NO( S : 3400
Property Address: 621 5th Street Springfield, OR 97477
Description of If you are filling in this form by hand, please attach your proposal description to this application.
Proposal
• Please see the attached proposal below.
Si natures: Please si n and orint your name and date in the a - ro riate box on the next a e.
RequiredProject
Ir.
Associated Applications: kk
Case No.: Z?,-000Uokf I@L
Date: Vi L. t,
Reviewed by: .AD
Application Fee: alb
I Technical Fee: O.Cto
I Postage Fee: 3
TOTAL FEES: `-�2-I • �fl
PROJECT NUMBER:
Revised 10.10.13ki 1 of 7
Signatures
An application without the Owner's original signature will not be accepted.
The undersigned acknowledges that the Informatatiioon in this application is correct and accurate.
(�._. Date: e19rzozz
Signature
If the applicant is not the owner, the owner hereby grants permission for the applicant to act In his/her behalf.
Date:
Signature
Print
Revised 10.10.131d 2 of 7
Historical Review
The Historic (H) Overlay District is established to encourage the restoration, preservation and
adaptive use of identified Historic Landmark Structures and Sites. The H Overlay District
implements applicable Metro Plan policies, the Washburne Historic Landmark District, Section
2.500 et seq., of the Springfield Municipal Code, 1997 and OAR Chapter 660-023.
The prospective applicant is encouraged to meet with planning staff to become familiarized with
the review process and determine what is required for a complete application.
1. Applicant Submits an Application for Historical Review
The application must conform to the Historical Review Requirements Checklist included in
this application packet.
2. Review
A. Type I applications for Minor Alterations of Historical Landmark Sites and
Structures will be reviewed by City Staff. The types of Minor alterations reviewed
are:
1. Construction, modification or demolition of accessory structures;
2. Additions, partial or total demolitions or substantial alterations to the
building facade of non-contributing and intrusive structures within the
Washburne Historic District;
3. Replacement of damaged exterior features with virtually identical
materials;
4. Additions, partial demolitions or alterations to Historic Landmark Sites
and Structures which fully conform to the standards of Section 3.3-945
and which are not visible from the street;
5. Installation of fewer than four (4) parking spaces;
6. Installation of signs of less than four (4) square feet; or
7. Any similar alteration or use which does not detract from the character
of a Historic Landmark Site or Structure.
B. Type II applications for Major Alterations of Historical Landmark Sites and
Structures will be reviewed by the Historical Commission. The Historical
Commission acts as the Development Review Committee for issues involving
Section 3.3-900 Historical Overlay District. Adjacent property owners and
occupants are notified and may attend a public review meeting and state their
concerns, or send written comments. The types of Major alterations reviewed are:
Revis d 10.10.13ki
1. Additions, partial demolitions, or substantial alterations to a building
fagade;
2. A change to a more intensive use category as defined in the underlying
district;
3. Installation of four (4) or more parking spaces;
4. Removal or radical trimming of large established trees or vegetation,
except where necessary for immediate public safety as determined by
the City Engineer;
5. Specific Development Standards in the Washburne Historic Landmark
District specified in section 3.3-9356.;
6. New construction of 1,000 sq. feet or more within the Washburne
Historic Landmark District; or
7. Any other alteration or use that the Director determines may detract
from the historic character of a Historic Landmark Site or Structure.
3 of
C. Type III Applications for Establishment of Historic Landmark Inventory,
Removal from Historic Landmark Inventory, Demolition of Historic
Landmark Structures and any Discretionary Use listed in the underlying
zoning district as specified in section 5.9-100 will be reviewed by the Planning
Commission following a recommendation by the Historical Commission. Adjacent
property owners and occupants are notified and may attend a public review meeting
and state their concerns, or send written comments.
Major and Minor Alteration Standards (3.3-945)
The following standards apply to major and minor alterations as specified in Section 3.3-
9158. and C., within the H Overlay District.
1. Any proposed use shall minimize exterior alteration of the Historic Landmark Site or
Structure and its environment; uses that require substantial exterior alteration shall
not be permitted.
2. The distinguishing original qualities of the Historic Landmark Site or Structure and
its environment shall not be substantially altered. The removal or alteration of any
historic material or distinctive architectural features is prohibited unless an
immediate hazard to public safety exists.
3. All historic Landmark Sites or Structures are recognized as products of their own
time. Alterations which have no historic basis and which seek to create an earlier
appearance are prohibited.
4. Changes that have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and
development of a Historic Landmark Site or Structure and its environment. Where
changes have acquired significance in their own right, this significance shall be
recognized.
S. Distinctive stylistic features and examples of local or period craftsmanship which
characterize a Historic Landmark Site or Structure shall be retained.
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced. In the
even replacement cannot be avoided, the new material shall match the material
being replaced in composition, design, color, texture and visual qualities. Repair or
replacement of missing architectural features is based on accurate duplicate
features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on
conjectural design, or the availability of different architectural elements from other
buildings or structures.
7. New design for undeveloped Historic Landmark Sites in the Washburne Historic
Landmark District and for alterations and additions to existing Historic Landmark
Sites and Structures are permitted when they complement significant historic,
architectural or cultural features and the design is compatible with the size, scale,
color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment.
S. New additions or alterations to Historic Landmark Structures shall not impair the
essential form and integrity of the structure.
Revised 10.10.13ki 4 of 7
Demolition Standards (3.3-950)
Demolition of Historic Landmark Sites or Structures is an extreme measure that may be
permitted only after all other reasonable alternatives for preservation have been
thoroughly examined.
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 1 of
the following criteria applies:
1. The condition of the Historic Landmark Site or Structure constitutes a serious and
immediate threat to the safety of the public or occupants that cannot be eliminated
without repairs that would exceed 50 percent of the value of the structure itself.
a. A MIA -certified appraisal shall be required to determine the value of the Historic
Landmark Structure.
b. At least 2 bids from qualified contractors shall be required to determine the cost
of repairs to the Historic Landmark Structure.
2. The property owner has demonstrated that there would be no reasonable, long-
term economic benefit from preservation of the Historic Landmark Site or Structure.
In making this determination, the owner shall demonstrate that all potential uses or
adaptive uses for the Historic Landmark Site or Structure have been thoroughly
examined. For example:
a. The fact that a greater economic return would result from demolition than
preservation is insufficient to meet this criteria.
b. A lack of adequate funds to pursue potential uses or adaptive uses is insufficient
to meet this criteria (i.e., selling the Historic Landmark Site or Structure is an
option that shall be considered).
B. If a Historic Landmark Site or Structure is permitted to be demolished, the property
owner shall provide the Historical Commission with:
1. Four sets of measured drawings prepared by a qualified draftsperson showing the
primary floor plans and the primary exterior elevations.
2. A set of photographs that document the exterior and interior details, including
significant architectural elements.
C. The property owner shall also supply the Historical Commission with any artifact or
other architectural element as identified by the Historical Commission. The artifact or
architectural element shall be carefully removed and delivered to the Historical
Commission in good condition to be used in future conservation work.
Revised 10.10.13ki 5 of 7
Historical Review Requirements Checklist
NOTE: If you feel an item does not apply, please state the reason why and attach the
explanation to this form.
x❑ Application Fee - refer to the Development Code Fee Schedule for the appropriate fee
calculation formula. A copy of the fee schedule is available at the Development & Public
Works Department. Any applicable application, technology, and postage fees are collected
at the time of complete application submittal.
z❑ Historical Review Application Form
x❑ A Brief Narrative explaining the purpose of the proposal.
x❑ One (1) Copy of the Deed to show ownership.
In Addition:
❑ Type I - Minor Alterations -Four (4) Copies of the Required Information:
❑ Plot plan drawn to scale - See Plot Plan Requirements Checklist attached.
❑ Photos of the existing structure and/or each damaged exterior feature to be
replaced to sufficiently show existing structure and/or conditions.
❑ Exterior elevation drawings of the new and/or modified structure.
❑ Type of facade materials to be utilized including manufacturer's specification
brochures.
❑ Type of construction materials to be utilized including manufacturer's specification
brochures.
For Installation of fewer than four (4) parking spaces:
❑ Plot plan drawn to scale - See Plot Plan Requirement Checklist attached.
❑ Location of trees and vegetation, indicating what vegetation is to be removed.
❑ Number of parking spaces shown as proposed (to scale).
x❑ Type II - Major Alterations - Four (4) Copies of the Required Information:
❑x Plot plan drawn to scale - See Plot Plan Requirements Checklist attached.
x❑ Photos of the existing structure and/or each damaged exterior feature to be
replaced to sufficiently show existing structure and/or conditions.
n/a❑ Exterior elevation drawings of the new structure, addition, alteration or area to be
demolished drawn to scale.
x❑ Existing type of facade materials.
Type of fagade materials to be utilized including manufacturer's specification
brochures. Listed in proposals attached.
x❑ Type of construction materials to be utilized including manufacturer's specification
brochures. Listed in proposals attached.
For Installation of four (4) or more parking spaces:
❑ Plot plan drawn to scale - See Plot Plan Requirement Checklist attached.
❑ Location of trees and vegetation, indicating what vegetation is to be removed.
❑ Number of parking spaces shown as proposed (to scale).
❑ Type III - Twelve (12) Copies of the Required Information:
Revised 10.10.13k1 6 of 7
Addition of Site or Structure to Historic Landmark Inventory:
❑ Plot plan drawn to scale - See Plot Plan Requirements Checklist attached.
❑ Complete City of Springfield Historic Inventory Form.
❑ Current photo of each exterior wall of the structure or if a vacant site, one current
photo of the site.
❑ Written findings which address the criteria for Establishment of Historic Landmark
Inventory (SDC 3.3-920).
Removal of Site or Structure from Historic Landmark Inventory:
❑ Plot plan drawn to scale - See Plot Plan Requirements Checklist attached.
❑ Copy of the City of Springfield Historic Inventory Form.
❑ Copy of the National Register Designation (if applicable).
❑ Current photo of the site or structure.
❑ Written findings determining Historic Designation was erroneously applied according
to the criteria for Establishment of Historic Landmark Inventory (SDC 3.3-920).
Demolition of Historic Landmark Structure:
❑ Plot plan drawn to scale - See Plot Plan Requirements Checklist attached.
❑ Information to meet the criteria of Demolition standards (SDC 3.3-950).
Plot Plan Requirements
A Plot plan must be drawn in ink on quality paper no smaller than 8 1/2" X 14"
and must contain the following information:
• The scale (appropriate to the area involvied and sufficient to show detail of the plan
related data such as 1' = 30", 1" = 50' OR 1" = 100'), north arrow and the date of
preparation;
• The street address and assessor's map and tax lot number;
• The dimensions (in feet) and size (either square feet or acres) of the property;
• Proposed and existing buildings; location, size (gross Floor area), conceptual Floor
plan, setbacks from property lines, distance between buildings, and height;
• Off-street parking areas, vehiclular access points and their dimensions; and
• The name and location of all existing and proposed public and private streets and
sidewalks within or on the boundary of the proposed property.
The following additional information may be required, please check with
planning:
• The on-site drainage system to an approved storm system;
• The connection to the City sanitary sewer system;
• The location and height of proposed or existing fences, walls, outdoor equipment,
storage, trash receptacles and signs;
• Required landscaped areas and street tree locations to include type of landscaping
or trees and type of irrigation system; or
• Any additional information necessary to address land use compatability or Metro
Plan issues.
Revised 10.10.13ki 7 of 7
Lane county Clerk 2015-055381
Lane County Deeds & Records
/� i i/t0/201503:09't2 PM
RGR-0EEn CnblsM=i C/SHIER O] 1peg¢4
Western ru,at,c,aa ss.sN $11.00 510 re .1 do $47.00
497 Dahway Road, Rune 340, Eugene, OR 97401 1
Order Number. 1080aa-CR
Carer L. areas
Ellzabeh A. Culp
35752 Hyrtleweod Lane
Pleasant Hill, Or. 97455
"Wont«
Timothy E. Halverson
Elleebuth A. Halvorson
6215thSheet
Springfield, OR 97477
Until a change Is re4ueatau, all Is. ab 60anud 'shall
9a xMto the.ftlidwine add.,
Timothy E. Halverson
Elhabath A. HaIvaRDn
621 RM Straat
Sp mefteld, OR 97477
Reserved for Recorder's Use
STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED
Corey L. Bragg and Elizabeth A. Culp, Grantor, Conveys and warrants to Timothy E.
Halverson and Elizabeth A. Halverson, as tenants by the entirety, Grantee, the
following described real property free of encumbrances except as specifically set forth
herein:
Beginning at a point 60.0 feet North of the Southwest corner of Lot 10, Block 90,
SPRINGFIELD INVESTMENT AND POWER COMPANY'S ADDITION, as platted and
recorded In Book 25, Page 306 and 307, Lane County Oregon Deed Records; run
thence Beat 92.0 feet; thence North 58.0 feet more or less to the South line of the
alley running East and West through said Block 90; thence West 92.0 feet along the
South side Of sold alley to the East line of North 5th Street; thence South along Said
East line 58.0 feet more or less, to the point of beginning, in Lane County, Oregon.
Account: 0311702
Map & Tax Lot: 17 03 35 24 03400
This property Is free of encumbrances, EXCEPT: All those items of record, If any, as of the
date of this tlestl, Including any real property taxes due, but not yet payable.
The true consideration for this conveyance is $231,000.00. (Here comply with
requirements Of ORS 93.030.)
I DETERMINE ANY
DEFINED IN ORS
:RTY OWNERS, IF
moms 5 TO 11,
'ER 855, OREGON
Exact, d this P day of November, 2015
Cor raga Elizabeth Culp
2t
State of Oregon, County of Lend ) as. Q.
an
Thfe instru t was acknowledged before me on this ID day of November, 2015 by Corey
L. eras Elix b th A. Ip
Notary Public for the State of Oregon �lS ��, Ornow srntia
My commission expires: i „ 1 CNIOgn POSg0a3 SCOLOSM
WTARevu6ucOxEGON
COMMffs0NW.sNvn
My WI.MlWjWX111M.6EPIE1REx W,. e
N Scale: 1 =;10'
i'- - - - - - -;- -- 58'-^--------^IA4
I �
' � I
I
I
Removaena We will rcmoretle eewesbsanlering
msw,,,j s°'^"vaevlaw�.
p'owessonlvcas"WisGarage
el nuulale the house, wrep it In vepar Nernst
stu. on ell end repere 11 win In, &.11 rs
sluing end pmpased Wena en,. swan end
twined finlshee, end stain a wanslind,es ererepprapriate
mmr.
I I.
I
Remave vtl
re,l
stucco an
mecum
gauge am
se.Ne
m F sldepomh
U
m pomp
Mouse
a I
a
I �
Q
I
I � I
unar Front -I
Porch
-- ---�— --�
I
I
I
5th St.
Address: 821 5th St., Springfield, Obi 97477 j
Tax L'ot No: 3400
i
Assessor's Map N0:1-7033524- -
I
Date of preparation:
5th St.
Address: 821 5th St., Springfield, Obi 97477 j
Tax L'ot No: 3400
i
Assessor's Map N0:1-7033524- -
I
Date of preparation:
Hello and good day!
We are Beth and Tim, owners and caretakers of the W. M. Long home. We are very excited to
write our proposal of the adjustments to our house, outlined in major sections below.
As you might recall from our first application, I am a long time Springfield resident, graduating
from Springfield High School in 2003. Tim moved to the area in 1993 and has made Oregon his
home. I grew up dreaming of owning a home in this district. When we bought the home in
2015, our hearts were made whole. Inside this home, the original built-in cupboards
throughout the home, the kitchen nook, laundry chute, ironing board, and original windows felt
important to preserve. I finally had a place to put my collection of kitchen antiques! We
embraced the interiors and hand -refinished the hardwood floors as we bought antique
furniture and settled in. We realized we had a lot of projects to help the home continue to
flourish and are now ready to complete the outside replacement of the crumbling stucco.
We only request that you read our application in view of our love of this home, this
neighborhood, and our desire to ensure this house stays viable. While we knew that replacing
the stucco would be costly, we did not expect that it would cost nearly $100,000 to complete
the project (beyond the $23,000 already put in to stabilizing the porches). We understand it is
required to shore up the home. And we request a practical approach to redoing this home
while you read our application, in line with the historic commission guidelines.
Proposal
• Have the existing stucco completely removed from the main house, the chimney, and
the detached garage by abatement specialists (as required by law).
o Current best proposal by LOI Environmental and Demolition Services (attached)
• Insulation added in (either batt fiberglass insulation or closed cell spray foam)
o Current best proposal by Brigham Construction (attached)
• Repair dry rot in the exposed structure
o Current best proposal by Brigham Construction (attached)
• Wrap the home in vapor barrier
o Current best proposal by Brigham Construction (attached)
• Re -stucco with historical color choices by consulting the Springfield History Museum
curator
Current best proposal by Tony Slaughter (attached)
Replacement of the Stucco Exterior
Current Condition of the Exterior
Outside the home, we loved the exterior. However, the condition had been deteriorating for
years before we bought it. Although the aggregate stucco exterior has been painted, a small
section of the side porch has the original material with lovely rocks and a variety of colors.
Before we moved in, we began searching for someone to come and patch the material that was
crumbling in the corners and the holes in the back walls (some former owner had planted some
lovely hydrangeas too close to the house and the stucco absorbed moisture and caved away
from the walls). We were not able to get a contractor to follow through and repair the
sections. Here are the current conditions of the exterior of the home and detached garage:
Side wall connecting with the side porch, significant cracks between the house and the sidewalk
material and the patch completed poorly
Back corner connecting to the back wall Section of exposed and caved away material
exposing the interior lath
that has caved from the wall exposing lath
detached garage
of material falling off that has not been touched due to
around downspout
Alley side connecting to back fence Picture of heavily decayed stucco surrounding the
Alley side, fireplace connecting to the roof to the left....................and on the right
While we appreciate the instructions offered by Springfield Planning & Development for the
repair and patching of stucco material. It appears we now have excessive moisture penetrating
through the material, making it challenging to repair. Our neighbor was able to patch/repair
and paint his stucco because his cracks were very small and he has a flat finish instead of an
aggregate finish, but ours are far outside of that. As you can see, some sections are losing
significant pieces and causing the house to be open to potential rot, mold, or pests. We do not
believe that a patch and repair approach would work, and we were not able to find someone to
do the work several years ago when we were initially looking into it.
When we set out to replace the siding, we learned we needed to have the stucco material
tested to ensure there was no asbestos. We tested and were astonished to find that all
surfaces (three types of materials identified by the inspector) contain asbestos. We learned it
would need to be specially removed by an abatement company. We learned from contractors
that the original and repair stucco had poor flashing at the base of the exterior walls, which is
likely to create ongoing challenges.
According to the EPA: "Asbestos -containing materials may release fibers when they are
disturbed, damaged, removed improperly, repaired, cut, torn, sanded, sawed, drilled or
scraped. Keep an eye on asbestos -containing materials and visually check them over time for
signs of wear or damage." They recommend removing such materials by an abatement
company. Now that we know all layers contain asbestos, and it is not in good working
condition, it feels necessary to remove it and put on siding that will be safer and last for longer,
while still having a historical charm.
Another challenge that we have read about and seems important: "Another reason for total
removal might be that the physical and visual integrity of the historic stucco has been so
compromised by prior incompatible and ill-conceived repairs that patching would not be
successful."
- https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/22-stucco.htm#repair
We have seen that many repairs and patches have been completed on the garage, in big
sections along the base of the stairs and around the porches. All were poorly patched and
highly visible due to the aggregate base and clearly defined lines of non -aggregate patching.
These do not look
professional, giving the
entire surface a
haggard appearance.
Even if we could
•fit- overlook the asbestos
challenge, this would
still not have a
dignified look due to
the other patchwork
present.
We understand that the historic code you refer to in your proposal (Section 3.3- 9158. and C.)
states: "The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features is
prohibited unless an immediate hazard to public safety exists." However, we feel the asbestos
in the material warrants this, especially since parts of the asbestos containing stucco is falling to
the ground. Our children, and our neighbor's small children, play within close vicinity to the
exterior that is crumbling and could release small amounts of asbestos into the air that could be
inhaled.
Poor Insulation
The Holiday Farm fire in 2020 and its resulting devastation illustrated to us just how little
insulation our home has: a substantial amount of smoke entered our home through the walls,
far more than was likely due from just the poor insulation from the original windows that hold
only a single pane. Since we need to completely remove the siding (for safety and due to the
existing state of the crumbling stucco) we want to improve the insulation of the home. This will
improve resilience against smoke and other elements and reduce our need for extra heating
and cooling to reduce our demand on electricity and natural gas to do our part to reduce
climate change. Our current R value is 0, and we want to increase this considerably. Brigham
Construction has given us two options that we will ultimately decide on after the stucco has
been removed and they can better see inside the walls to advise of the best approach. Unless
the commission has any concerns with the type of insulation, batt fiberglass insulation or closed
cell spray foam, we will consult with the contractors at that time to determine next steps.
Replacing the Aggregate Stucco with A Different Finish
When we requested the Historic Commission to allow us to replace the stucco with cedar lap
siding in 2021, we were denied due to the historic nature of the stucco on the home. When we
had investigated replacing the siding, we had already spent several years seeing if we could get
the stucco patched or repaired. We had a very hard time finding a contractor across those
years who even did stucco, largely because they highlighted this climate is not suited for stucco.
The one recommended to us never followed through. We were grateful to get three companies
recommended from the historic commission with our denial of siding replacement in 2021.
Of the three contractors the historic commission provided us, two followed through and
provided us with quotes (it took from 8/2021 to 4/2022 to get their final proposals with
comments on the type of stucco work). We appreciate the professional and direct approach of
Eugene Plastering. However, we plan to go with Bill Slaughter Inc contractor Tony Slaughter,
who provided us with a good approach and we appreciate his style and his focus on historical
accuracy: "My Product Is Conventional Stucco... We Can Also Apply Cement Board System, But
It A Conventional System Better 'Ties'The Building Together and Is Period Correct."
Here is his bid pasted in that arrived via email:
On Feb 7, 2022, at 8:44 AM, bslaughterinc@aol.com wrote:
Tim
Bid For Conventional 3 Coat Stucco At 621 5th Street In Springfield.
Includes: WRB, Drainage Mat, Metal Lath, Cement Scratch Coat, Cement Brown Coat, Acrylic
"Dash Finish" With Integral Color, Scaffolding, Caulking Of Stucco, And Stucco Accessories.
Excludes: Framing, Furring, Flashing, Sheathing, Masonry, Concrete, Insulation, Demo, Painting,
And Work Behind Solar Electric Boxes.
Work Includes All Areas That Have Stucco Including Garage And Chimney.
Labor and Material
$44,787.00
Bid Is Good Until 4/30/2022
Tony Slaughter
President
Bill Slaughter Plastering Inc
CCB 24803
541-954-9005
Regarding the Finish: Aggregate vs. Another Finish
In emailing and communicating with both Eugene Plastering and Bill Slaughter Inc, we asked
them both about the aggregate finish since we understand that we would ideally replace the
existing stucco with aggregate stucco. Drew Larson stated we would need to maintain the
same texture with the replacement options in his email from 2/14/2022: "The code language is
fairly specific in this instance, 'In the event replacement cannot be avoided, the new material
shall match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture and visual
qualities.' So you need to propose as close to the existing finish as you can." We will address
the challenges with those components in the emails below:
Following our conversation with Drew Larson, we asked both contractors to investigate the
aggregate stucco, aka marble crete, option further. The next two pages hold the email
correspondence from Tony Slaughter and Eugene Plastering regarding the challenges with this
material:
From: bslauehterinc(cDaol.com
Date: April 13, 2022 at 7:46:54 AM PDT
To: thalversCome.com
Subject: Re: Stucco Bid 6215th Street
Reply -To: bslau¢hterincCnlaol.com
Good morning, Tim
I have not found any place to get the green agates. Twenty years ago, I was able to purchase
rock at Willamette Graystone, but they informed me that they do not sell small, bagged rock
anymore. I think the only option for the rock marble crete is to use pea gravel or something
similar size that can be found at a Home Depot or Jerrys. One problem I see is that your house
could look more like a 60s office building or apartment than a beautiful period correct vintage
house. I am neck deep in red tape on four large commercial jobs I have going and do not have
the time to do the research on different rock availability. Marble crete just isn't that common
anymore. The path of least resistance on the texture is either a sand finish or dash. I know I
didn't help too much here. Sorry.
Tony Slaughter
Bill Slaughter Inc
54-954-9005
An example of building in the adjacent neighborhood (corner of 4th St & E St) with the type of
From: John Eugene Plastering <iohn@eu¢eneplasterin¢.com>
Date: April 20, 2022 at 3:08:43 PM PDT
To: Tim Halverson <thalvers@Dme.com>
Subject: RE: Your proposal from Eugene Plastering is ready
Good afternoon Tim,
As per the issue with the Aggregate Stucco
This system of stucco is very outdated due to the fact that the equipment to apply the product
is no longer available.
Reasons:
1. Cannot get equipment to apply product anymore
2. The application system that was done many years ago is and has been known for
weatherization failure
Our new stow base coat system is a 3 faze system that works superior to the old-style stucco
and decently a better fit and finish product that meets todays codes.
Let me know if you have any questions as we are here to help.
Thanks
John Duck, Estimator
Office Phone: 541.461.6824
Cell / text: 541.729.6617
John @ Eugene Plasteri n¢. com
Our Proposed Finish
Based on this review, the contractors recommended that aggregate replacement is not an
option. We want to match the texture to match those of neighboring houses in the Washburne
of the same era: according to Tony Slaughter: "The path of least resistance on the texture is
either a sand finish or dash."
Of the proposed language proposed by Drew Larson:
"In the event replacement cannot be avoided, the new material shall match the material being
replaced in composition, design, color, texture and visual qualities." The proposed solution
maintains all components except for composition and texture, which are due to the marble
crete application process no longer used bythe contractors provided.
We are not knowledgeable about these types of finish as we would like to be, but nearby
houses, such as 504 E Street has a similar finish to a dash finish that looks lovely and has been
preserved well. We have observed the process of this homeowner patching and repairing this
type of finish with a flexible seal, that when painted over, is not noticeable at all. It looks
seamless and maintains the historical accuracy of the home, while preserving the stucco below:
Neighborhood examples of non -aggregate stucco finish options, either in full or as accent
pieces on the home (house pictured and then a close-up of the texture section of homes):
Home
on 5°h &
E Street
_ - Home on E Street,
near 5t^ Street
y
Pictured below: Home
on F Street between
4t1 & St' Sts
Home
on 511
Street,
btwn
5th &
6'^ St
A version of home
on 611 & E St with
aggregate stucco
below ('red' layer)
and sand or dash
finish above
('white' layer)
highlighting that
there are other
examples in the
neighborhood with this type of finish as
well. We have spoken with this
homeowner, and the other homeowner
with aggregate stucco a few blocks from
us, and neither of them had an additional resource for us to patch/repair our stucco.
Additionally, our porches have been finished in what appears to
be a sand/dash finish and already look quite different than the
rest of the aggregate stucco finish. We would be refinishing the
entire house with a finish similar to that already covering the
most street -visible sections of the house:
Here is an online
representation of the dash
finish (not the color, only the
type of finish that feels like
the most appropriate finish
to utilize with our home):
dosing Wishes
We appreciate you taking the time to read our application. We believe we are doing everything
that is being asked of us to maintain the historical accuracy, aside from what is lost to the
annals of history. Thank you for allowing us to improve this wonderful home.
Sincerely,
Beth and Tim Halverson
LOI ENVIRONMENTAL AND DEMOLITIONSERMES
59307esn Road, lake Oswega, OR 97035-541-953-8301—ssenders�i0oienviro.com
July 8, 2021
Tim Halverson
6215- Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
Re: Asbestos abatement /6215"Street / Springfield, Oregon 97477
The following is am proposal to remove regulmed/asbesws- rdainmg material (ACK at the
above -referenced location.
Scope of Work
This proposal is for supplying all labor, materials and safety equipment necessary m remove
materials discussed, examined mthe site and detailed in the drawings/docummts provided.
Duties include the following:
The proper removalof approximately 1300 square feet of asbestos -containing exterior stucco
located on the main house and garage.
Duties include the mobilization, removal and demobilization of all waste and abatement equipment.
All necessary notification fees, (personal) air monitoring and disposal costs are included in this
proposal. All pertinent documentation including the LRAPA notice form, air monitoring reports
and waste shipment records and project logs will be included in a post -abatement package upon
request.
Protective barriers are erected, and NEPA-filtered air filtration units (AFU) are installed to produce
Negative Pressure Enclosures (NPE) in which the abatement process is conducted These NPE
will be maintained at four air changes per how and with a minimum of 0.02 column inches of water
pressure differential relative to outside pressure, evidenced by manometric measurements.
Before protective barriers are removed a Quality air test is performed as per Department of
Environmental Quality Regulations (OAR 340-248-0270 (13))
Requirements
The following services an be supplied by the building: potable water and three to six 120 Volt, 15
Amp electrical circuits within the vicinity of the work area.
Schedule
All work to be completed in a timely manner. Work would take place over 8 -day period.
iusur&nce inclusions
The cost for the project includes the following, .$5,000,000 general liability and pollution insurance.
$1,000,000 auto insurance and $2,000,000 workers comp coverage with a $5,000,000 umbrella
over the auto insurance. The following endorsements providing additional insurance and other
coverage are available as a pan of our standard policy: CG2010 10 01, primary and Non -
Contributory, CG2037 10 01, Waiver of Subrogation for the General Liability and Workers
Lake Oswego Insulation Ca - 1 CCB: 0R#38052 WA#LAKE001917JH
Compensation.
Exclusions
Asbestos materials found in other areas are not included in this proposal.
Bid for work described within. $18,692.00
The bid is valid for 30 days from the date of this proposal.
Conditions
Ibis bid is conditioned upon the parties examting a written contract for the work included in this proposal with
terms and conditions satisfactory to LOI Environmental & Demolition Services.
Terms
Payment is due within 30 days of invoiciag. Late payments are subjeci,. to a 1.5% interest fee per
month.
Informadon Notices
By signing below the Owner's representative acknowledges receipt of the Oregon Notices For
Residential Construction Projects (if applicable).
If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
s4WON S4rK,*W
estimator
LAI Envimnmentsl & Demolition Services
A ban rofLake Oswego Luwiadon Co
LAI Environmental & Demolition Services is hereby authorized to famish all materials and labor required to
complete the work mentioned above, for which the undersigned agrees to pay the amount stated in accordance with
the terms thereof.
By:
Title: Date:
CustomerName:
CustomaPO #
Billing Address:
STRE6T G11Y STATE Zm CODE
Billing Contact:
Phone Number:
Lako Oswego Lrrsnlarron Ca - 2 CCB; 08#38051 WALAKE,907917M
Bid from Bill Slaughter Plastering Inc
On Feb 7, 2022, at 8:44 AM, bslauzhterincCdaol.com wrote:
Tim
Bid For Conventional 3 Coat Stucco At 621 5th Street In Springfield.
Includes: WRB, Drainage Mat, Metal Lath, Cement Scratch Coat, Cement Brown Coat, Acrylic
"Dash Finish" With Integral Color, Scaffolding, Caulking Of Stucco, And Stucco Accessories.
Excludes: Framing, Furring, Flashing, Sheathing, Masonry, Concrete, Insulation, Demo, Painting,
And Work Behind Solar Electric Boxes.
Work Includes All Areas That Have Stucco Including Garage And Chimney.
Labor and Material
$44,787.00
Bid Is Good Until 4/30/2022
Tony Slaughter
President
Bill Slaughter Plastering Inc
CCB 24803
541-954-9005
BRIGHAM CONSTRUCTION
2050 Roosevelt Blvd. Eugene, OR 97402
(541) 688-3648
info 4Glbrighamconstmction.com
CCB#: 168164
April 11, 2022
TO: Tim 8r Beth Havers.
621 5*. St.
Springfield, Or. 97477
BID PROPOSAL
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 6215-. St. Springfield, O, 97477
CONTRACT WORK
Exterior House & Detached Garage Subsiding
1. Remove and dispose of the exisdng lath around the exterior of the home, on both front/side porches and the
detached garage where the existing stucco has been removed.
Install new 2.4 & blocking as needed around the windows, exterior doors, etc.
Install new %" CDX subsiding and new Everbuilt house wrap around the exterior of the home, on both
front/side porches and detached garage where the stucco has been removed.
It. #1: $24,910
*Note: It is assumed that 1/2' sub sidThe cost to remove and/or re -install any electrical around the
home and detached garage is not included in this estimate.
2. Remove and replace any dry rot damaged framing around the exterior of the house and the detached garage
after the existing lath has been removed.
Item #2: These repairs will be made on a "Time & Material' basis at a rate of $80 per man hour plus
materials.
3. Have a licensed contractor install new R-21 fiberglass batt insulation around the exterior of the home situ the
existing lath has been mrnoved and before the new sub siding is installed.
*An allowance of $1,875 has been added for this item.
*Note: To install new blow in wall insulation around the perimeter of the home after the new sub
siding has been installed, add an additional $525 to the estimate total.
Basement Egress Window:
4. Excavate and remove an area of soil 60" wide by 42" deep by 42" outside the north east basement window to
allow for a new larger egress window and new window well to be installed.
Soil to be removed and dispose of off-site.
Remove and dispose of the existing 36"x18" basement window, interior/exterior window trim and two pieces
of interior maple paneling atoned the 36"x18" window where the soil has been removed.
Frame out the new basement window opening with new 2x6 pressure treated material after the window
opening has been cut large,.
Install a new Prime 720 series, 30"x36", white vinyl, left hand ontswing casement window, new selfadhering
window flashing over the window flange, new z -metal Bashing above the window, new cannot cleat cedar trim
to match the existing, new interior window sill wrap and two new pieces of clear brushed maple veneer
plywood to match the existing oramor.
Install a new 50" wide by 36" deep by 36" tall steel Egress window well Model #SPE5036-36.
Item #4:$5,560
5. Have a licensed contractor cut, break and remove and an area of basement concrete stem wall 33"x39" where
the existing 36x18" basemen[ window is located.
*An allowance of $1,615 has been added for this item.
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: Item #1, #3, #4, & #5: $33,960 Item #2: Time & Material
Page 1—STANDARD TERMS 01591571-2
NOTES ON CONTRACT' ITEMS:
1)'Ibe cost to repair any additional damaged found during the course of apaiss is not included in this estimate.
2) The cost to paint or stain is not included in this estimate.
3) The cost of this estimate is good for ten business days.
4) The cost of plans, permits and any associated fees is not included in this estimate.
5) Material costs are subject to change due to the convent volatile lumber madket. Material costs to be re-evaluated
prior to scheduling of project Brigham Construction to notify owner of any additional costs that may be
incurred due to increase in lumber prices.
DATE:
BID PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY: Chris Dickson
BRIGI IAM CONSTRUCTION
Page 2—STANDARD TERMS 01591571-2