HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision Planner 7/21/2022D.Lo"r?Jtn
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
STATE OF OREGON )
)ss
Gounty of Lane )
l, Shannon Morris, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows:
1. I state that I am an Administrative Specialist for the Planning Division
of the Development and Public works Department, city of springfield,
Oregon.
2. I state that in my capacity as Administrative ialist, I andSpec
caused to be mailed copies of
+(See attachment "A") on
2022 addressed to (see tAttachment "B"), by
said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully
prepaid thereon.
Shannon Morris
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
.lu-P-l J,l 2022, Personally appeared the above named Shannon
fVtorris, [aministrative Speciatist, who aiknowledged the foregoing instrument
to be their voluntary act. Before me:
tuUew -
@,
OFFICIAT STAMP
KE LLY B N OTARY
NOTARY PUBLIG OREGON
COMMISSION NO.984347
1c0MMlSSl0NEXPIRESMARCH 8,2023
My Commission Expires:M&Lclr ltr | Jo,l I
SPRINGFIELD
TYPE II HISTORIC OVERLAY REVIEW
STAFF REPORT & DECISION b
OREGON
Case Number: Bll-22-0001 19-TYP2
Proiect Location: 62L 9th Street, Springfield,
oR.
Assessor's Map & Tax Lot:
L7 -03-35-24;TL 3400
Zoning: Low Density Residential
Application Submitted Date: May 70,2022
Historic Commission Date: May 24,2022
Public Notice: May 25,2022
Decision Issued Date: july 21,2022
Appeal Deadline Date: Augu st 4, 2022
Associated Applications: n/a
PROPOSAL: The applicant propose to remove the existing deteriorating asbestos-containing stucco,
insulate the house, wrap it in vapor barrier, and replace it with period appropriate stucco and finishes
and stain it with era-appropriate color.
BACKGROUND: The 1984 survey identified the structure as: "A one-story, with basement residence
was built in 1924. This Bungalow has stuccoed walls and a gabled roof with horizontal braces. One-over-
one, double hung windows fenestrate the sides while the fagade has multi-paned windows. The porch has
heavy square columns on a concrete wall base. The exterior chimney has been stuccoed which gives the
home a California Bungalow appearance. A small, enclosed, gabled-roof, side porch protrudes from the
house with a side door that faces the street.
Type 2 Historical Review
APPTICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
Applicant / Owner:
Beth & Tim Halverson
621 5th Street
Springfield, OR97477
Representative:
N/A
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE
Planner Planning/Historic Regulations Drew Larson (541J736-1003
8l l-22-0001 19-TYP2
Attachment A
Page I of4
t)
E Strecft
t
t_
[ .' .r
OJ
OJ
L
I
fftq'"r
'xF
W. N. Bill Long was the original owner and first occupant of this George Perkins built house. Long was an
owner of the Long and Cross plumbing store on Main Street between 4th and Stt Streets. Long served on
the Springfield City Council from 79777 to 7924 and thereafter was occasionally appointed to other
committees."
REVIEW PROCESS: This proposal is a Type II Historic Overlay District application. The application was
reviewed in accordance with SDC 3.3-915 C and review criteria 3-3.945. The elements of the submitted
proposal that would have exceeded the Type I process and/or significantly impacted the external historic
character of the structures are precluded herein or were voluntarily withdrawn by the applicants.
Specifically the applicant has withdrawn the portion of the proposalto replace the stucco. lihis decision
does not approvalreplacement of the stucco or address the impacts from that portion of the proposal
since it has been withdrawn.
PROCEDURAL FINDING: Applications for Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of property
owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowing for aL4-day comment period on the
application [SDC 5.1-130 and 5.2-115). The applicant and parties submitting written comments during
the notice period have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration. Notice was
sent to property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on May 25,2022; no public
comments were received.
PROCEDURAL FINDING: In accordance with SDC 5.1-130 the applicant was forwarded to the Historical
Commission on May 24,2022 and the commission provided comments regarding all proposed work. Staff
has incorporated the Commission's comments into the applicable portions of this application and are
attached to this decision.
DECISION
Type II Historical Review approval as of the date of this letter, subject to the conditions and
recommendations described herein.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL (SDC Section 3.3-945 Maior and Minor Alteration Standards)
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.
Finding: The existing and proposed use of the structure and site does not change from the detached
single-unit dwelling with this proposal.
Conclusion: As submitted, this proposalsatisfies Criterion 1.
8t t-22-0001 t9-TYP2 Type 2 Historical Reviev,Page 2 of 4
F"
l"i
tII
trsFlT {
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.
Finding: The applicants propose to remove the existing deteriorating asbestos-containing stucco,
insulate the house, wrap it in vapor barrier, and replace it with period appropriate stucco and finishes
and stain it with era-appropriate color.
Finding: The applicants submitted documentation demonstrating the stucco contains asbestos which
is widely known to cause long-term health issues. Therefore, the removal and replacement with
period appropriate stucco is approved.
Conclusion: As submitted, the proposal satisfies Criterion 2.
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.
Finding: The proposal does not seek to create an earlier appearance.
Conclusion: Staff finds that this Criterion is not applicable.
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.
Finding: There are no changes that staff or the Historic Commission have identified that have
acquired significance on the property.
Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 4.
5. Distinctive stylistic features and examples of local or period craftsmanship which characterize
a Historic Landmark Site or Structure shall be retained.
Finding: Based on the Historic Commission and Staff review, all proposed work maintains distinctive
stylistic features which characterize the historic structure. The distinctive stylistic features which
characterize the historic structure include a gabled roof with horizontal braces; one-over-one, double
hung windows fenestrate the sides while the fagade has multi-paned windows; and the porch has
heavy square columns on a concrete wall base, these features are not proposed to be removed.
Conclusion: As submitted, this proposalsatisfies Criterion 5.
6, 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. Repair or replacement of missing
architectural features is based on accurate duplicate features, substantiated by historic,
physical or pictorial evidence rather than on coniectural design, or the availability of different
architectural elements from other buildings or structures.
Finding: Based on the historic district survey (attachment 2) performed in 1984 the existing house
and chimney had stucco siding at the time of the survey. The stucco treatment, although not heavily
8lt-22-0001\?-TYP2 Type 2 Historical Revie-' Page 3 of 4
prevalent in the district is not uncommon as other homes within the same block, along F Street, also
have stucco siding.
Finding: The survey states that the stuccoed siding gives the home a California Bungalow appearance
According to Wikiapeidia, California Bungalow construction was popular in America from 1910 to
1939 and stucco was often used as siding material; this home was constructed in 1924. Based on the
other homes in the district with stucco finishes, constructed around the same time as 627 lth Street,
and Wikipedia the stucco finish was likely the original siding material. Therefore, the stucco must be
repaired or replaced in composition, design, color, textures and visual qualities.
Finding: The applicants have submitted and thoroughly demonstrated that the stucco contains
asbestos and has deteriorated beyond repair. The applicants, in consultation with the Historic
Commission, provided stucco replacement bids to remove the asbestos-containing stucco and replace
with period-based stucco finish and coloring.
Finding: Staff and the Historic Commission agree the existing stucco finish is a hazard to the public
health and has deteriorated beyond repair, the replacement as proposed is approved.
Conclusion: As submitted, this proposalsatisfies Criterion 6.
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.
Finding: The site is developed, and no new additions are proposed with this application.
Conclusion: Staff finds that this criterion is not applicable.
8. New additions or alterations to Historic Landmark Structures shall not impair the essential
form and integrity ofthe structure.
Finding: The essential form and integrity of the structure, i.e., the original architect/builder would
recognize the structure regardless ofthe changes that have occurred over time, include the side porch
as originally constructed. The applicant's proposal to replacement the existing stucco finish with
period-based stucco and coloring does not impair the essential form and integrity of the structure.
Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion B.
DECISION
Type II Historical Review is approved as of the date of this letter
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE
Upon completion, the applicant shall call Andrew Larson at [541) 736-7003 or by email at
alarson@springfield-or.gov to photograph the building for City archives,
8t t-22-0001 t9-TYP2 Type 2 Historical Review Page 4 of4
HffiT
CITY OF SPRINGFIEID
DEVELOPMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
225 5th St.
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Cf\
ygq)
E
-C,o(6
4+,
E
Beth & Tim Halverson
621 sth Street
Springfield, Or 97477