Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision Planner 3/12/2020ktt*yt, AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF OREGON County of Lane l, Brenda Jones, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows: I state that I am a Management Support Specialist for the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. I state that in my capacity as Management Support Specialist, I prepared and caused to be mailed copies of Notice of Decision re: 811-20-000027- TYP| Historic Overlay Review for 821 E Streef 17-03-35-13 TL 4900 (See attachment "A") on March 12,2020 addressed to (see Attachment "B"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. aJo Management S Specialist STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane v 2020 personally appeared the above named Brenda Jones, Ma nt Support Specialist, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: ) ) ) ss. 1 2 @ OFFICIAL STAMP XATRII{A AIIDERSOII NOTARY PUBLIC.OREGON coMMrssroN No.967995 llY cullssrot{ ExPffigs 0CT08ER 31, 2021 mmission Expires:lo 3l ;-/ozl RINGFIELD TYPE I HistoTic OVERLAY REVIEW STAFF REPORT & DECISION OREGON Case Number: 811-20-000027-TYP1 Proiect Location: B27E Street, Springfield, OR. Assessor's Map & Tax Lot: 17-03-35-13; TL 4900 Zoning: Low Density Residential Application Submitted Date: January 31,2020 Historic Commission Notice: N/A Decision Issued Date: March 12, 2020 Appeal Deadline Date: N/A Associated Applications: None PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a number of repairs and alterations in keeping with the historic time period. The applicant proposes to install an 11" bulkhead/retaining wall along the front property line; iepair/replace existing cedar shake siding; install a handrail on the front porch; replace deteriorated faicia board and add soffit for support; and add vertical 7" x3f 4" board strips to the T1-aa siding to mimic board and batten siding. BACKGROUND: The Washburne Historic District was entered in the National Register of Historic Places on February 10, LgB7. The structure located atB2]_ E Street is considered to be Eligible/Contributing within the Washburne Historic district according to a 7984 Survey Sheet' "This 1924 Bungalow has a concrete foundation, asbestos siding and one-over-one double hung windows fenestrating the sides. The house has a medium-pitched gable roof and an interior chimney' The half- width po..h is recessed and has tapered columns. One-half of the porch has been enclosed. Other APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Representative: N/A Applicant / Owner: Curtis Crosswhite 827 E Street Springfield, OR97477 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE Planner Planning/Historic Regulations Drew Larson t541)736-1003 81 l-20-000027-TYPl Type I Historical Review Page I of 5 \!.d Iq U} li I/ l r! I i I E St j t t" additions include a dormer and a two-story extension that includes extended living space and a second level balcony. Initially A. Sloan owned this house. Since then, it has had eight different owners including Frank B. Hamlin [1935-1941), who was a former Springfield postmaster. Hamlin lived at 406 N 4tt street at that time, so it could be assumed that this was a rental property." REVIEW PROCESS: This proposal is a Type I 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. DECISION Type I Historical Review approval as of the date of this letter, subject to the conditions and recommendations described herein. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAT (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 applicant is proposing minimal exterior repairs and alterations which do not substantially alter the existing fagade of the home. The repairs and alterations include: installation of an 11" bulkhead/retaining wall along the front property line; repair/replace existing cedar shake siding; repair street facing windows or replace if necessary; install a handrail on the front porch; replace deteriorated fascia board and add soffit for support; and add vertical 1," x 3 f 4" board strips to the T1-11 siding to mimic batten board siding. Finding: The existing and proposed use ofthe structure and site does not change from the detached single-unit house with this proposal. The proposed repairs and additions are not a substantial exterior alteration and are therefore permitted. 8l 1-20-000027-TYPt Type I Historical Review Page 2 of 5 r r-{ t U a? @qdb 1 i, FTl j" ?r !., ti-- -t' Lii-.- Conclusion: As submitted, this proposalsatisfies Criterion L. These changes and additions shall not be modified during the construction process and shall be field verified as construction occurs. 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 applicant is not proposing the removal of distinguishing original qualities of the site or structure. Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 2. No additional work shall take place outside the approved land use decision without additional historic review applications. 3, All Historic Landmark Sites or Structures are recognized as products of their own time. Alterations which have no historic basis and which seekto create an earlier appearance are prohibited. Finding: Allproposed removals and repairs, and additions, are proposed to maintain the existing historiCappearance by matching historic characteristics of the home including siding, bargeboard and soffits. Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 3. No additional work shall take place outside the approved land use decision without additional historic review applications' 4. Changes that have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and devel,opment of a Historic Landmark Site or structure and its environment. Where changes have aiquired significance in their own righ! this significance shall be recognized. Finding: It is unclear when the second story dormer was constructed on the property, however it appears to be mid 1970s with T1-11 siding. Finding: The applicant proposed to add vertical 7" x3f 4" board strips to the T1-11 siding to mimic batten board siding. Staff recommends that the T1-11 siding be removed and traditional siding be incorporated into the addition to be compatible with historic home. However, this is not required and the addition of board strips to mimic batten board siding will be more compatible with the district. Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 4. No additional work shall take place outside the approved land use decision without additional historic review applications' S. Distinctive stylistic features and examples of local or period crafflsmanship which characterize a Historic Landmark Site or Structure shall be retained. Finding: There are no planned removals of local period crafumanship at this time. However, the applicant shall not remove any architectural features including, but not limited to, siding, trim, biigeboard, soffits, or wood windows and doors without proper approvals. Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 5. The elements listed above shall be maintained throughout the construction process and no additional work shall take place outside the approved land use decision without additional historic review applications. 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 8l l-20-000027-TYPt Type I Historical Review Page 3 of5 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: The applicant is proposing minimal exterior repairs and alterations including repair/replace existing cedar shake siding, window repair or replacement with wood windows, and replace deteriorated bargeboard and add soffit for support. Finding: The applicant proposes to repair/replace existing cedar shake siding with like materials. The materials used shall match the existing composition, design, color, texture and visual qualities. Finding: The applicant proposed to repair and replace deteriorated fascia board and add soffit for support. The proposed replacement is like for like and the soffit addition is in keeping with the historic features of the home. Finding: The applicant proposes to replace or repair the existing front facing windows. The Springfield Development Code and the Historic Design Guidelines state the architectural features, including windows, should be repaired rather than replaced and if repair is not possible then replacement with like for like windows is permitted. The windows should match composition, design, color, texture and visual qualities. Finding: The applicant proposes Anderson wood windows in the event repair is not physically possible. Condition of Approval: The applicant shall repair the primary fagade windows in order to maintain the original architectural feature; or provide evidence from a third party window restoration company, specializing in historic structures, demonstrating that these windows are beyond repair, in which case the windows may be replaced but must be like for like of wood composite. These repairs and changes shall be verified and approved by Development Services Historic staff prior to building permit approval or any construction on site. Conclusion: As conditioned, this proposal satisfies Criterion 6. No additional work shall take place outside the approved land use decision without additional historic review applications. 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 enyironment. Finding: The site is developed and no new additions are proposed. Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 7. No additional work shall take place outside the approved land use decision without additional historic review applications 8. New additions or alterations to Historic Landmark Structures shall not impair the essential form and integrity ofthe structure. Finding: The applicant proposed to install an 11" block retaining wall along the front property line. The Springfield Historic Design Guidelines state that retaining walls should be stone or poured concrete, not concrete block or "cottage stone." In order to meet design guidelines the applicants are 8t 1-20-000027-TYPt Type I Historical Review Page 4 of 5 required to construct the retaining wall along the front fagade with either poured concrete or natural stone. Condition of Approval: The applicant shall construct the proposed retaining wall along the front property line with either poured concrete or natural stone, the design of which shall be subiect to review and?pproval of Development Services Historic staffprior to construction or the issuance of a building permit. Advisory Note: You can view new bulkheads at 522 E Street and 724 D Street for examples of poured concrete. Finding: The applicant proposed to install a handrail on the front porch. The handrail will not alter the original/existing design of the porch and is therefore permitted. Conclusion: As conditioned, this proposal satisfies Criterion B. No additional work shall take place outside the approved land use decision without additional historic review applications. DECISION Type I Historical Review approval as of the date of this Ietter Condition of Approval: l. The applicant shall repair the primary fagade windows in order to maintain the original architectural feature; or provide evidence from a third party window restoration company, specializing in historic structures, demonstrating that these windows are beyond repair, in which case the windows may be replaced but must be like for like of wood composite. These repairs and changes shall be verified and approved by Development Services Historic staff prior to building permit approval or any construction on site. 2. The applicant shall construct the proposed retaining wall along the front property line with either poured concrete or natural stone, the design of which shall be subiect to review and approval of Development Services Historic staff prior to construction or the issuance of a building permit. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE Upon completion, the applicant shall call Andrew Larson at (541) 736-L003 or by email at alarson(Dspringfield-or.gov to photograph the building for City archives. 8t t-20-000027-TYPl Type I Historical Review Page 5 of5 ctw oF DEVELOPMENT & PUBLICWORKS 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Curtis Crosswhite 82I E Street Springfield, 0regon 91471