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