Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision Planner 10/26/2022D L1/r;/firl AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. County 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 Specialist,repared and caused to be mailed copies offu]futtW tdtoivwm (See attachment "A") on)Cml'" Ab ,2022 addressed to (see tAttachment "B"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. Shannon STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane D&hbLr JUtu 2022, Personally appeared the above named Shannon Morris, Administrative Specialist, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: \ or'GtM+a* @ OFFICIAL STAMP KELLY R NOTARY NOTARY FL'BLIC OREGON coMMtsstoN No. 984347 c0MlvllSS|ON EXPIRES iitAftCt{ 18, e02g My Commission Expires:lr en SPRINGFIELD TYPE 2 Historic OverlayReview STAFF REPORT &DECISION Btt-22-O0017z-TvPz OREGON Case Numb erl. 877-22-000L7 Z-TYPZ ProiectLocation: 639 C Street Assessor's Map & Tax Lot: L7-03-35-24; TL 12000 Zoning: Low Density Residential Application Submitted Date: |uly 77,2022 Application Deemed Incomplete: luly 26, 2022 Historic Commission Date: September 27,2022 Public Notice: October 4,2022 Decision Issued Date: October 26,2022 Appeal Deadline Date: November 7,2022 Associated Applications: n/a APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEWTEAM PROPOSAL: The applicant has proposed to remodel the existing residence including removal of an existing Yzbath, shower stall, pellet stove, kitchen remodel, full bath remodel, addition a hallway, front porch steps, west facing porch, replacing the metal roof with composite roofing, and restoring the exterior finishes where damaged. BACKGROUND: The 1984 survey identified the structure as: "This 1912 Bungalow is sited among tall fir trees and is in a nicely landscaped setting. It has a newer metal-clad garage and a greenhouse 811-22-000172-TYP2 Tltpe 2 Historical Review Page I of 7 Applicant: Michael Zimmerman 639 C Street Springfield, OR97477 Representative: Todd Miller AIA Todd Miller Architecture 31740 Owl Rd. Eugene, OR 97405 POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE Planner Development Code Drew Larson 736-L003 Public Works Sanitary & Storm Sewer Clayton McEachern 736-7036 Deputy Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 726-2293 Building Official Building Code Chris Carpenter 744-4753 Attachment A C Street B Street r:IA ffi I E i n h'- ,/ attachment to the rear. Metal now covers a medium-pitched gable roof. The exterior is finished with raked wood shingles. New sliding windows have replaced most of the originals, but a 12 over 1 light "picture" window remains on the fronts. A second front window, overlooking the porch, has a single pane with a 1950's-style louvered vent under it. The porch is now recessed and slightly projects beyond the fagade. A new foundation was built in 1.946. Noah Helterbrand is the remembered occupant of this residence, having purchased the house in the early \920's and living there until the 1940's. In 1918, Harry T. Shea, purchasing agent for the Oregon Power Company lived there. REVIEW PROCESS: This proposal is a Type 2 Historic Overlay District application. The application was reviewed in accordance with SDC 3.3.915(B). PROCEDURAL FINDING: Applications for Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowing for a 14-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 October 2,2022; no public comments were received. HISTORIC CRITERIA FOR APPROVAT (SDC Section 3.3.945 Maior and Minor Alteration Standards) l. 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. Applicant Statement: The proposed extent of the exterior alteration is a remodel of an existing % bathroom, removal of a shower, addition of porch stairs facing "C" Street in the front of the residence, an addition of a West facing porch and repair or replacement of any deteriorated architectural features. These alterations along with replacement of two kitchen and two bedroom aluminum windows will be minimal. Historic Commission Comment & Recommendation: The new porch addition is not in compliance with this as it is a substantial exterior alteration to the porch, which is a historic feature per Springfield's Design Guidelines. I believe it is out of complian ce for 2 reasons (which aligns with 5/4 Architecture's review) l. It expands the existing porch significantly, requiring an extension to the original roofline that impacts the front fagade of the building and is visible from the street (5/4 also noted the problematic lack of differentiation in materials between the new/old construction for this addition). 2. The addition of steps and removal of the historic guardrail to the north of the front door, introduces a new approach and point of entry for the building, This is out of compliance with the Porch section of the Springfield Design Guidelines. Recommendation: We would recommend that the design is approved under the condition that the "new" porch construction does not include a roofline modification or extension. A temporary treatment such as an arbor with accent lights, could be very aesthetically pleasing and provide some cover/space definition, while not requiring as significant alterations to the roofline and front facade. 8t t-22-000172-TyP2 Tltpe 2 Historical Review Page 2 of7 We are less concerned about the new entrance steps. However, if they City wants to be consistent with Design Guidelines they may want to seek clarification to why that improvement is necessary. It seems redundant to me and possibly more of an aesthetic desire over a functional improvement. Finding: The existing and proposed use of the structure, single-unit dwelling, and site does not change from a residential use with this proposal. Finding: Staff addresses the changes to the front porch and western fagade porch addition in Criterions 2,7 &B below. Conclusion: Based on the above findings staff concludes that Criterion 1 is met. 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. Applicant Statement There will be no substantial changes to the original qualities of the site, structure, or environment. There will be no removal or alteration of any historical material or distinctive architectural features. Historic Commission Comment & Recommendation: We believe the proposal is in alignment with this section. Recommendation: Approval Finding: The applicant has submitted several changes to the exterior fagade including removal of an existing Yzbath addition along the eastern fagade; remodeling an addition on the western fagade to match the existing home; altering the front porch to have a set of stairs on the northside of the porch and extending the porch to the west; removing the existing metal roof and replacing with composite roofing; and restoring exterior finishes where damaged. Finding: The existing Yzbath proposed to be removed is an addition to the home along the eastern fagade to the rear of the historic structure. There are no records indicating when this addition was added. The lz bath on the eastern fagade does not match the historic finish materials including T1- 1 1 siding. The applicant proposes to remove this addition and restore the fagade to its original historic finish using cedar siding. This is approved with this application. Finding: The applicant has proposed to remodel the existing original front porch. The existing porch has a west facing entrance and stairs and railing along the northern edge of the porch. The applicant proposes a new set ofstairs and porch entry along the northern edge. The proposed change to the front porch is an alteration and removal of historic material and architectural feature which is not permitted. In addition, the proposed expansion does not meet the standard for an addition to a historic resource, as discussed in Criterion 7 below, and is not approved with this application. A condition of approval requires the porch to remain as is but may be repaired as necessary. Condition of Approval: The applicant must maintain the front porch in its current configuration with its west facing entrance and stairs; no new entry is permitted on the northern edge of the existing front porch. The porch may be repaired as necessary but must match the distinctive historic qualities in both design and composition. 81 1-22-000172-TYP2 Tltpe 2 Historical Review Page 3 of 7 Finding: The applicant proposes to remove the existing metal roof and replace with composite roofing material. The Historic Design Guidelines specifically state that metal roofs are inappropriate in the Washburne Historic District. The removal of the metal roof is not a removal or historic material or distinctive architectural feature and is approved with this application. Conclusion: As condition, staff finds that this criterion is satisfied. 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. Applicant Statement: There will be no alterations that seek to create an earlier appearance. Any proposed alteration will have historical basis. The existing metal roof covers a wood shake roof providing providence for using a composite roofing material to mimic wood shakes as previously utilized. Historic Commission Comment & Recommendation: Siding and window replacements are not replacing historic features and are differentiated from the existing historic features on the site. Demolished portions of the house are also not historic. Recommendation: Approval. Finding: The proposed changes to the historic resource do not seek to create an earlier appearance, The applicant proposes to restore deteriorated architectural features with traditional historic materials to match the existing resource as close as possible. Conclusion: As submitted, Criterion 3 is met. 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. Applicant Statement: The removal of a shower on the east elevation and bathroom remodel on the west elevation are items that are non-conforming and do not have significance in their own right. The front porch stair addition will require removal of a portion of the existing railing which has an acquired significance and this significance will be recognized. Historic Commission Comment: We are not aware of anything that falls into this category Recommendation: Approval. Finding: It is unknown when the shower bump out addition on the eastern fagade was added to the historic resource. The bump out addition does not match the roof pitch and T1-11 siding was used which is an inappropriate siding in the Washburne Historic District, therefore this bump out addition has not gained significance as it is an intrusion into the district. The applicant's proposal to remove the shower addition and restore the siding to match its original siding is approved. Finding: It is unknown when the existing bathroom addition on the western fagade was added to the structure. This addition does not match the roof pitch and used T1-11 siding. The applicant proposes to remodel this addition to include a continuous foundation, upgrade to the roof to align with existing roof pitch, and upgrade the siding to match the existing home. As discussed below in Criterion 6, the 8I t-22-000172-TYP2 Type 2 Historical Review Page 4 of 7 siding must be complimentary and historic based, i.e., the addition must use different siding from the original structure to differentiate original historic resource from the addition. Finding: The proposed front porch alteration is discussed in Criterion s 2,7 & 8 and is conditioned to remain unaltered. Conclusion: Based on the above findings, Criterion 4 is met. 5. Distinctive stylistic features and examples of local or period craftsmanship which characterize a Historic Landmark Site or Structure shall be retained. Applicant Statement: There will be no alterations of any existing distinctive stylistic features. \Mhere alterations are proposed, materials and installation will be utilized to match the historical character of the existing residence. Historic Commission Comment: No Comment Finding: The applicant proposes to alter the front porch to add a new entry and stairs on the north edge of the porch. The porch currently has a wood railing along the north edge of the porch with an existing entry on the west side of the porch. Staff finds that the front porch including the stairs and rail are distinctive stylistic feature and must be retained in their current configuration, this is required as a condition of approval. Additionally, as discussed in Criterion 2,7 &B the proposed changes to the front porch are not permitted as it is altering the historic resource. Conclusion: As conditioned, Criterion 5 is meL 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 conjectural design, or the availability of different architectural elements ftom other buildings or structures. Applicant Statement: In any deteriorate architectural features are encountered and cannot be repaired, the new material will match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and visual qualities. These materials will be based upon 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. Historic Commission Comment: The understanding is that historic architectural features, aside from the ones mentioned above that are deemed not to be historic, are not be modified or removed in this proposal Finding: Windows to be replaced in this application are not original, These windows would have originally been single pane wood windows but were replaced with aluminum sash at an unknown date. Though aluminum clad wood windows would be ideal, there is no adverse effect by replacing the aluminum sash with new vinyl windows if the opening is not altered to accommodate the new material. The proposed windows are approved. Finding: The repair and if necessary replacement of deteriorate architectural features is approved with this application. However, if'a replacement cannot match the material being replaced then a new Historic Overlay Review is required. 81 1-22-000172-TYP2 Type 2 Historical Review Page 5 of7 Conclusion: Based on the above findings, staff concludes that Criterion 6 is met. 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. Applicant Statement: The proposed design will complement significant historic, architectural, or cultural features and will be compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. Historic Commission Comment: The new porch addition is not in compliance with this as it is a substantial exterior alteration to the porch, which is a historic feature per Springfield's Design Guidelines. I believe it is out of complian ce for 2 reasons (which aligns with 5/4 Architecture's review) 3. It expands the existing porch significantly, requiring an extension to the original roofline that impacts the front fagade of the building and is visible from the street (5/4 also noted the problematic lack of differentiation in materials between the new/old construction for this addition). 4. The addition of steps and removal of the historic guardrail to the north of the front door, introduces a new approach and point of entry for the building. This is out of compliance with the Porch section of the Springfield Design Guidelines. Recommendation: We would recommend that the design is approved under the condition that the "new" porch construction does not include a roofline modification or extension. A temporary treatment such as an arbor with accent lights, could be very aesthetically pleasing and provide some cover/space definition, while not requiring as significant alterations to the roofline and front facade. We are less concerned about the new entrance steps. However, if they City wants to be consistent with Design Guidelines they may want to seek clarification to why that improvement is necessary. It seems redundant to me and possibly more of an aesthetic desire over a functional improvement. Finding: The Washburne Historic Design Guidelines for new addition state additions should be made to the rear of the building if possible and occasionally side "L" may be an appropriate addition; generally, the same roof type and pitch should be uses for additions; no addition should overwhelm the scale of the building; the additional space should be both compatible in design, but distinguishable from the original portion of the building; and that compatible materials and construction techniques should be considered. Finding: The applicant proposes to add a new north entry and stairs to the existing porch. As discussed, and conditioned in Criterion 2, this will be a significant alteration and removal of distinguishing original historic railing and is therefore not permitted. Finding: The applicant proposes to extend the existing front porch to the west in line with the existing front porch. The addition will extend the railing and posts on the same plane as the exiting porch but will step the new shed roof back to preserve the original gable roof. The applicant also proposes a west facing side porch addition, proposed to be connected with the front porch addition. 81 1-22-000172-TYP2 Tltpe 2 Historical Review Page 6 of7 Finding: The extended front covered porch and connected west facing side porch is significant and alters the C Street primary fagade. It uses a single pitch shed roof that is different from the historic, repeated gable roof massing that is a common character defining features of modest crafuman style bungalows from the 1910s and 1920s. The new roof element makes the repeating front gables of the house and porch massing harder to read and though not overwhelming in mass, it does significantly alter the front elevations. As conditioned above, the original front porch must be maintained in its original form and function and cannot be extended along its existing plane. The new west facing side porch must be stepped back a minimum of 1 foot from the front corner of the primary fagade of the home, not the front porch, and must clearly be distinguishable from the original front fagade. Condition of Approval: The proposed west facing side porch, including posts and roof, must be setback a minimum of one foot from the northwest front corner of the home fagade, not the corner of the front porch. The applicant must amend the proposed site plan and elevations demonstrating compliance with this condition of approval. Conclusion: As condition, staff finds that this criterion is satisfied B. New additions or alterations to Historic Landmark Structures shall not impair the essential form and integrity ofthe structure. Finding: The proposed repairs, replacements, and additions, as conditioned above, does not impair the essential form and integrity of the existing historic structure with this application. Conclusion: As submitted and conditioned above, this proposal satisfies Criterion B. DECISION Type 2 Historical Review is approved, as conditioned, as of the date of this letter. 1. The applicant must maintain the front porch in its current configuration with its west facing entrance and stairs; no new entry is permitted on the northern edge of the existing front porch. The porch may be repaired as necessary but must match the distinctive historic qualities in both design and composition. 2. The proposed west facing side porch, including posts and roof, must be setback a minimum of one foot from the northwest front corner of the home fagade, not the corner of the front porch. The applicant must amend the proposed site plan and elevations demonstrating compliance with this condition of approval. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE Upon completion, the applicant shall call Andrew Larson at [541) 736-1003 or by email at alarson(Dspringfield-or.gov to photograph the building for City archives. 81 1-22-000172-TYP2 Type 2 Historical Review Page 7 of 7 iffit CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT & PUBUC WORKS 225 5th st' SPRINGFIELD , OR97477 Mlcnaet /tmmerman 539 C Street ipringfield, or 97477 .* o)() -.J3(D =?lF (F 'HffiT CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT &' PUBLIC WORKS 225 5th st' SPRINGFIELD , OR97477 Todd Miller, AIA Todd Miller Architecture 31740 OwtRd' Eugene, Or 97405