HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision Planner 7/1/2022D,Uarrsoy,r
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, I prepared and
caused to be mailed copies ot ?ll'2?,- }O)PI\'N'.? nsMo fQvteut'
(See attachment "A") on
2022 addressed to (see tAttachment "B"), by
ng d letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully
prepaid thereon.
Shannon Morris
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
2022, Personally appeared the above named Shannon
Adm istrative Specialist, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument
to r voluntary act. Before me:
5*
@
OFFICIAL STAMP
KAIRIIIA AIIDERSOT
NOTARY PUBLIC.OREGON
coMMtssroN No. t017676
tfl cormsstoN u,PnEs oCToEER 6,2@s
My Commission Expires:t.l Lo l>*r. s
SPRINGFIETD
TYPE II HISTORIC OYERLAY REYIE\ry
STAFF REPORT & DECISION
OREGON
Case Numb erl. 877-22-000092-TYP2
Proiect Location: 62L iil, Street, Springfield,
0R.
Assessor's Map & Tax Lot:
77-03-35-24; TL 3400
Zoning: Low Density Residential
Application Submitted Date: April 6, 2022
Historic Commission Date: April 26, 2022
Public Notice: April L9, 2022
Decision Issued Date: July L,2022
Appeal Deadline Date: fuly 16,2022
AssociatedApplications: n/a
PROPOSAL: The applicant has proposed several changes with this application as outlined in the
application narrative and stated here.
"We would like to add approximately 14'6" to the East (Left) side of the house and approximately 14'8" to
the South (Back) of the house. The homeowners plan to landscape in front of the new addition with their
existing raised planter to help it disappear in the background.
It is our goal to maintain the existing curb appeal of the existing structure and enhance it with new siding
by replacing the old, deteriorated siding. The new siding will be a paint grade cedar siding with a very
similar if not the same siding detail as the current existing siding.
Type Il Historical Reviev,
APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
Applicant:
Brad Griffin
Griffin Home, LLC
PO Box 707L8
Springfield, OR97475
Representative:
Derek & Eva Watts
621 F Street
Springfield, OR97477
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE
Planner Planning/Historic Regulations Drew Larson [541)736-1003
8t t-22-000092-TYP2
Attachment A
Page I of9
et
I
I
:-
N
L,.l'
'I.)
r- S:I
prrrri ft
:'rr {"
J
1:
E Stree,tli'l
-:li*;
Although you can see the addition of the new roof over the back of the house in the elevation drawing, it
will be hard to see once the home is completed. The view of the front elevation is at floor level and if you
were standing on the street or sidewalk approx. 2-3' lower, it will be very hard to see.
There have been a couple of additions to this house over the years prior to the current ownership with
mismatch materials and we would like to improve the home by raining floor level of the addition up to the
main house floor. Moving the water heater inside the home to conditioned space. Remove and replace the
semi-flat roof on the back of the house with a pitched roof. Properly insulate the attic spaces and exterior
walls for energy efficiency and add a new heating/cooling system to the entire home which will get rid of
existing baseboard electric heaters.
Window trim and siding around the house will remain the same detail as the existing. Interior doors and
floors will stay with the same style and characteristics. No kitchen cabinetry will be altered, all existing
woodworh door trim and window details will stay the same."
BACKGROUND: The 1984 survey identified the structure as: "This smallone-story house currently is
being renovated. It appears that when first built the house measured about 18 x 20 feet with a one-half
pitch gabled roof. The gabled ends were at the sides. To this was added a rear section with a low-pitch
shed roof that continued form the house roof. The original house has one-over-one double-hung windows,
while the addition has aluminum sliders. The exterior finish is Iap siding." The house is identified as
Secondary Significance [Contributing) in the Washburne Historic District.
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.
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
8l |-22-000092-TYP2 Type ll Historical Reviev, Page 2 of9
..,. l8t
'-1,- "rt
t
.l
!-..
{,rI' -\
/rr
/Ai ,.'*L
I
l''rcLI
_..-
the notice periodhave appear rights::lil'rffi',:'$ilifJ.XtHii:::llHf$,11#ill;I;Hi'y"
sent to property owners/occupants wltn
ao*rantt *ere received'
f,.13:'fj.,f3:11;[lll'],:iff?:i :tT.:ffihli 'iffii];,o,lnno'arter the street view nor dr11r--
as in 618 c St.--the original structure, *t i.t, i, ,1i.ry trou.". er"r*t, it has historic presence for what it is--
a tiny house.
I cannot see how such a huge addition above and aside this sma, house can possibly be acceptable' It iust
what do you think? The guy plans to flip it as an investment not a personal residence' Frankly his
addition is an abominati6n. I strongly "ul"a.r'ir,is
proposal ;";"1;; k"eping with the principles of the
historic district."
Public Comment: Tim Hilton '625 Gstreet' Springfield' OR
,,l,ve reviewed the plans. The only thing t noti.. tt rt i, at issue with guidelines for additions to a
residence in the Historic District i, tt "
uuit of the new aaaition, moity au. to the roof' That roof ridge
will be visible from the street and will ri*ruv ""..rrrrao*.,tr.
existin! historic resource' If the roof was
changed so it sroped io tt e back and *rJ;; * o. u.to*,t "."i*ing iidge then that would mitigate the
bulk.l hoPe this was helPful'"
Public Comment: Paul Metzler,618 F Street' Springfield' OR
,.r am writing in support of this project. I live direitry across tt . ,t.e.t. This project wiil continue the path
of steady improvem'ents in the historic district and is fully in keeping with the character of the
neighboihood. t u.g. the city to approve the application'"
pRocEDURAL FINDING: In accordance with sDC 5.1-130 the apprication was forwarded to the Historical
commission on Aprl 26,2022,and the commission provided comments regarding the proposed work'
staff has incorporated the commission,s comments into the appricabre 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 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 enyironmenq uses that require substantial exterior alteration shall not be permitted.
Applicant Statement: With the new addition being set back from the existing home, visually it will
nof impact the character of the existing home elevation. Plants and shrubs will be planted in front of
the new addition to help it disappear in the background'
breaks so manY rules'
Historic Commission Comment: The Commission believes that the scale of the proposed addition,
especially along the north fagade [F St. facing side) ofthe structure qualifies as a substantial exterior
alternation. It appears possible that the design could be configured in a way that allows for the
historic bungalow features being more prominent. Some recommendations that could help achieve
this: focus on having the addition extend to the south and minimize expansion to the eastern side of
the building, have the new addition set back from the front facing fagade at a much greater distance
than 1'. By moving the addition almost entirely to the south end of the structure the applicant would
also better meet the following Guideline for Additions in the Historic Design Guidelines (pg.28):
8t t-22-000092-TYP2 Type II Historical Revien,Page 3 of9
,lffil?[T:,"],'.ffi[1,9e so that if the addition ever were to be removed, there is minimar damage
Finding: The existing and proposed use ofthe structure and site does not change from the detached;'ii:f :li'*iH:H'*::l'"l:x::'.ffi1:;il';#,"0li*.,"r changes,." ai,.,,,ed in the criteria
conclusion: As submitted, criterion 1 is not appricabre to this apprication.
2' The distinguishing original qualities of the Historic Landmark site or structure and itsenvironment shall not be substantially altered. rtre removal or alteration of any historic
ffil3[U:t*L::*" architectural reaturer ir r-;ilited unress an immeaiate hazard to
Applicant stateme.nt: The existing historic siding on the front and sides of the house will be removedand replaced with the same style slding.-New sidiig will be a paint grade cedar channel ship lap sidinglike detail #105 attached' This will notilter the looi oittr. .*irting exterior.
New structures will maintain the significance of the historic styre from the street by setting back thenew addition and the main additioron the back of the house.
Historic commission comment: The applicant verbally claimed that no original windows or doorswill be removed or replaced as part ortn-ii project. This"isgreaq the commission would like to seethis information included and documented-in ihe application.
original siding will be replaced on the historic portion of the building. The application does notinclude reference to the current condition of the existing siding. our consult ant, S/AArchitecture,
noted that siding should only be replaced if it is more thin 50% deteriorated per the Secretary of theInterior Standards. The Commission would Iike to see documentation that the siding on the "*irtirgstructure is significantly deteriorated prior to recommending approval of this request. Also, in
accordance with our consultant's recommendations we would like to see documentation of the
deterioration and need for replacement of the existing trim.
Finding: The Springfield Historic Design Guidelines state that "lt is important to identiff and protect
character-defining features such as siding types, window and door moldings, cornices and brackets."
Per the 1984 Survey Card "lt appears that when first built the house measured about 18x20 feet with
a one-half pitch gable roof. The gabled ends were at the sides. To this was added a rear section with a
low-pitch shed roof that continued from the house roof. The original house has one-over-one double-
hung windows, while the addition has aluminum sliders. The exterior finish is lap siding."
Finding: Sometime between 1984 and 2007, French doors and deck were added to the east fagade
removing the historic one-over-one double-hung window on the east fagade. In addition, the interior
was remodeled to included vaulted ceilings in the front living area, and the historic attic vents on the
east and west facades were replaced with what appear to be vinyl windows. These changes were not
approved by the Springfield Historic Commission and have altered the home'
Finding: The applicant has proposed an addition approximately 1'4'6" to the east side of the house
and approximately L4'8" to ihe south of the house' This additio; is proposed to be setback 1' from the
existing front fagade ro preserve the originai r."rt .1113-i:1.:1. home and the new gabled roof is
plannedtobelowerthantheexistingrooflinetopreserveexistingfasciaandsoffitoftheoriginal
home. The addition will extend to the .,'i"na it't p"uiotlsly unp-ermitted French doors and vinyl
window would be removed. The addition would alio remove thsaluminum windows on the rear
8t t-22-000092-TYP2 Type Il Historical Review Page 4 o.f 9
addition that are also not historic. As conditioned in Criterion 7, all new additions, including windows,
must use historic construction materials
Conclusion: As conditioned below, the proposal satisfies Criterion 2. The proposed replacement of
existing lap siding is denied.
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: No comment was provided relevant to this criterion
Historic Commission Comment: Aside from windows, the new addition appears to attempt to match
the finishes and material used in the historic structure. The Commission requests that the new
addition be distinguishable from the original structure in order to meet this standard. Suggestions for
how to achieve this include: using a different style or pattern of siding.
Finding: The proposal does not seek to create an earlier appearance. However, as discussed and
conditioned in Criterion 7 below, the addition must be distinguishable from the historic resource but
must also 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.
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.
Applicant Statement: No comment was provided relevant to this criterion
Historic Commission Comment: The age of modifications that have occurred overtime are
unknown. No permit files are currently available for this property. We cannot determine whether any
of the additions have historic value in their own right.
Finding: There have been significant additions to the back and a French door installed in the east
elevation. Neither the addition or alterations have known historical significance.
Conclusion: As submitted, this proposalsatisfies Criterion 4.
8t t-22-000092-TYP2 Type ll Historical Review Page 5 of9
Finding: In addition, the applicant has proposed to remove and replace the siding and trim siding
from the sides and front of the building and replace with paint grade cedar channel ship lap siding to
match the original materials. Criterion 6 below states that deteriorated architectural features shall be
repaired rather than replaced, which includes existing siding and trim. As conditioned below, the
existing siding, outside the proposed addition, is not allowed to be removed without providing
supporting evidence that it is beyond the point of repair. This would require a new Historic Review to
be referred to the Springfield Historic Commission.
5. Distinctive stylistic features and examples of local or period craftsmanship which characterize
a Historic Landmark Site or Structure shall be retained.
Applicant Statement: The existing historic siding on the front and sides of the house will be removed
and replaced with the same style siding. New siding will be a paint grade cedar channel ship lap siding
like detail #105 attached. This will not alter the look of the existing exterior.
New structures will maintain the significance of the historic style from the street by setting back the
new addition and the main addition on the back of the house.
The current window, siding and corner trim details will be preserved to maintain the distinctive
stylistic features of the local or period craftsmanship.
Historic Commission Comment: Per our consultant's review the most distinctive features of this
structure include the "the modest size, central door and flanking double hung windows" along with
the "historic wood siding". The applicant has verbally noted that the original windows and doors will
not be replaced, the Commission would like this documented in their application.
Removal of the historic wood siding is of concern to the Commission as stated previously as is the way
that the new addition is laid out along the north fagade, which diminishes the original small stature of
the building
Finding: As discussed above, the applicant has proposed an addition to the side and rear of the
existing home. The addition is proposed to be setback 1' from the existing front fagade to preserve the
original front corner of the horne, and the new gabled roof is planned to be lower than the existing
roof line to preserve existing fascia and soffit of the original home, The proposed addition will not
remove any distinctive stylistic feature and examples of local or period craftsmanship which
characterize a Historic Structure.
Finding: AII proposed work maintains distinctive stylistic features which characterize the historic
structure including maintaining the original primary fagade. The distinctive stylistic features which
characterize the historic structure include a gabled roof and one-over-one, double hung front
windows.
Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies 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.
Applicant Statement: New paint grade cedar channel siding, shiplap style matching pattern #105 as
attached will be install[ed] on all new walls of the building. Siding will also be installed on the front of
the house so all siding lines up and matches correctly.
New 1x CVG trim will be installed around the new windows and doors to match the existing home.
New will be Milgard Vinyl windows Tuscan series to match the existing window in the home.
Historic Commission Comment: This has been addressed previously. The Commission would like to
see documented need for replacement of the siding and trim on the original structure. We would also
8t t-22-000092-TYP2 Type ll Historical Review Page 6 of9
like to see documentation that the existing windows and doors plan to be retained in order to meet
this standard. If siding/trim does need to be replaced the finish/trim of the existing structure should
be measured and documented so that it can be matched as best as possible once replaced. These
recommendations are consistent with the Historic Design Guidelines (pg. 17). Note that the Guidelines
include materials for siding that are considered inappropriate for the historic district (e T1-11 siding,
plywood, aluminum, and vinyl).
Finding: The applicant has proposed to remove and replace the siding and trim from the sides and
front of the building and replace with paint grade cedar channel ship lap siding to match the original
materials.
Finding: The applicant provided no evidence that the existing siding, outside the proposed addition,
is deteriorated to a point that replacement is necessary. Per the Secretary of the Interior Standards
siding should only be replaced if it is more than 500/o deteriorated. Therefore, the existing siding,
outside of the proposed addition, cannot be replaced with this application, and must be maintained on
the existing facades.
Condition of Approval: The existing lap siding outside of the proposed addition areas, must be
maintained and repaired and cannot be replaced without providing evidence through a City of
Springfield Historic Application that the siding is beyond repair.
Conclusion: As conditioned, 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.
Applicant Statement: With the new addition being set back from the existing home, visually it will
not impact the character of the existing home elevation. Plants and shrubs will be planted in front of
the new addition to help it disappear in the background.
The existing historic siding on the front and sides of the house will be removed and replaced with the
same style siding. New siding will be a paint grade cedar channel ship lap siding Iike detail #105
attached. This will not alter the look of the existing exterior.
New structures will maintain the significance of the historic style from the street by setting back the
new addition and the main addition on the back of the house.
The current window, siding and corner trim details will be preserved to maintain the distinctive
stylistic features of the local or period craftsmanship.
Historic Commission Comment: The Commission agrees with the recommendation of our
consultant, 5/4 Architecture that the uniqueness of this historic bungalow is its scale within the
historic district and the story that that tells. We would prefer to see the addition be accomplished in a
way that preserves and celebrates this uniqueness. We agree with the following statement from our
consultant:
The proposed addition more than doubles the originalsize of the historic resource and dominates
rather than compliments the main historic fagade of the original building. In its current form, the
proposed addition is not compatible in size and scale. It is the opinion of 5 /a Architecture, LLC
8t t-22-000092-TYP2 Type ll Historical Reviev,Page 7 of9
that some modest design changes could help this addition fit within the context of the historic
resource and other surrounding structures within the Washburne Historic District.
Finding: The site is developed with an existing single-unit house built in 1920. Subsequently, an
addition to the rear of the home with a shed roof was added and the historic one-over-one double
hung window on the eastern fagade was removed and replaced with a French door. The existing home
is approximately 730 sq. ft.
Finding: The proposed addition is setback L' from the existing northeast corner of the home, and the
new gabled roof is lower than the existing roof line to preserve primary fagade of the original historic
resource. The Historic Commission recommended the new construction be set back further from the
main fagade to allow the original historic fagade to be distinctive from the new construction; the
Commission recommend a 2' setback. The applicant stated in a letter on May 24,2022, that they are
willing to set back the new addition 2' from the front corner of the home to further preserve the
Historic Resource, A condition of approval requires the addition of the east of the Historic Resource to
be setback 2' from the northeast corner of the primary fagade to meet the Historic Design Guidelines
and to be compatible with the size, scale, and character of the property.
Condition of Approval: Prior to Building Permit approval, the applicant must setback the
proposed addition 2' from the northeast corner of the primary fagade to meet the Historic
Design Guidelines and to be compatible with the size, scale, and character of the property.
Finding: The applicant proposed to replace all siding with paint grade cedar channel shiplap. As
discussed above, no siding may be replaced outside the addition areas without demonstrating that the
siding is beyond repair.
Finding: The Historic Design Guidelines state that new additions must be compatible, yet
distinguishable, from the existing Historic Resource. The Historic Commission and staff agree that the
new siding and trim must be distinguishable from the existing resource. The applicant stated in their
letter that the new addition will be shake single siding or smooth hardboard; hardboard is not
appropriate siding in the Washburne Historic District. The new addition must use wood shake single
siding as stated by the applicant.
Condition of Approval: Prior to Building Permit approval, the applicant must show on the
elevation drawings that wood shake single siding to be constructed on the new additions and
provide product specification detail with the Building Permit.
Finding: The new gable roo[, as proposed, to the rear of the historic home will be visible above the
existing roofline of the Historic Resource which detracts from the originalstyle and aesthetic. The
proposed roofline for this portion of the addition is shown to be 7:72 pitch. The existing home is
approximately 1B'tall and the new roof addition is shown to be approximately 22',which is 4'taller
than the existing home. The proposed addition is not compatible to the size and scale of the existing
home,
Finding: During the Historic Commission meeting, the applicant agreed to lowering the roof pitch to
be more compatible with the existing home. Subsequently, the applicant stated in a letter to staff
stating that they are willing to lower the pitch to a 6:72 to be more compatible with the home. The
owner also provided a rendering of the home showing how the new roof peak at the proposed 6:12
pitch will still extend above the height of the existing home. In order to be compatible in size and
scale, the new roofline cannot exceed the height of the existing Historic Resource. A condition of
approval requires the applicant to reduce the roof pitch as to not exceed the height of the home to be
compatible with the Historic Resource.
81 t-22-000092-TYP2 Type ll Historical Reviev'Page 8 of9
Condition of Approval: Prior to Building Permit approval, the applicant must lower the
proposed rear addition's roof to be at or lower than the height of the existing Historic
Resource to be compatible with the size and scale. This must be demonstrated through
elevation drawings at grade of the existing home and not from the sidewalk perspective.
8. New additions or alterations to Historic Landmark Structures shall not impair the essential
form and integrity ofthe structure.
Finding: The addition to the side and rear of the home are planned to maintain the original fagade
and form of the historic resource, and as conditioned, staff finds that the essential form and integrity
of the structure is not compromised and can proceed with building permit subject to the conditions of
approval.
Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion B
DECISION
Type II Historical Review is approved, as conditioned, as of the date of this letter
1. The existing lap siding, outside of the proposed addition areas, must be maintained and
repaired and cannot be replaced without providing evidence through a City of Springfield
Historic Application that the siding is beyond repair.
2. Prior to Building Permit Final Plot Plan approval, the applicant must setback the proposed
addition 2' from the northeast corner of the primary fagade to meet the Historic Design
Guidelines and to be compatible with the size, scale, and character of the property.
3. Prior to Building Permit approval, the applicant must show on the elevation drawings that
wood shake single siding to be constructed on the new additions and provide product
specification detail with the Building Permit.
4. Prior to Building Permit approval, the applicant must lower the proposed rear addition's
roof to be at or lower than the height of the existing Historic Resource to be compatible
with the size and scale. This must be demonstrated through elevation drawings at grade of
the existing home and not from the sidewalk perspective
WHAT NEEDSTO 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 I -22-000092-TYP2 Type II Historical Review Page 9 of9
Conclusion: As conditioned, staff finds that this criterion satisfied.
MH
EITJ
ffi
.lH{
o1t
vtE
7tHza.n
mF
U
Im(pE?
6)rumnNzmu--lEsp-^ f- -ol) Lrt CFno(otrNnr5
F7\t
NGFIELD CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
225 5th St.
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
8xeryav-.OJ3'e3ootl9=l.l
=x-i'*de t.-:t j =g B.!oloF{ (')5\l(,
@
OREGON
E
nH{
oTI
1
!nxzo.n
Hmr
E'
(]
m
vtF-trn
d-e
6) nr m
-.!-l ru z.iTi u --{
.EHr
Otr,ip-go(otr{ar
-{d
Fxt
PaulMetzler
518 F Street
Springfield, Or 97477
NGFIELD
OREGO
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
225 5th St.
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477v
8SB
='6B?;."q39{rO O)NA{{
Jonathan Siegel i
540 E Street
Springfield, Or 97477
HffiX
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT & PUBUC WORKS
225 5th St.
SPRINGFIELD, OR97477
Tim Hilton
625 G Street
Springfield, Or 97477
Attachment b