HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision Planner 3/17/2020DU
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 ,all"d copies or 8tFery OmDafXru,'*h* r.^*
+ &cr ttbn (See attachment "A") on tY\a/d^. [-'t ',2020
addressed to (see tAttachment "B"), by causing said letters to be
placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon.
Sh annon Morris
2020, Personally appeared the above named Shannon
Administrative Specialist, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument
to be their voluntary act. Before me:
ffi-dffffii}'#sl"-\SBZ coMMtssloN No. 96799s
IY Colflilsslotl Dffis oCIoBER 3l' 2021
My Commission Expires:(o 3t )ozt
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
SPR.INGFIELD
TYPE II HISTORIC OVERLAY REYIEW
STAFF REPORT & DECISION b
OREGON
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a number of repairs to the existing fagade including cove shiplap
siding, tall narrow one-over-one wooden windows, minimal decorative window casings, a continuous
hipped roof, open front porch and matching garage with barn-style door. The addition, tied into an
existing feature and line, will match the original house in every way, but be setback from the street, with a
lower roofline, to designate it as new, and set it apart from the original house.
BACKGROUND: "This 1910 residence displays design characteristics of the Transitional Box. It is one
story and has a hipped roof with boxed eaves. The siding is lapped. Tall, narrow one-over-one windows
are surrounded by simple trim with a cap molding. The porch is half-width and recessed. There have been
two additions to the rear, with one being fairly early in the life of this house. The rear porch may have
been enclosed.
Type II Historical Reviev,
APPTICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
Applicant / Owner:
Selah Meyer
1446 Luella Street
Eugene, OR 97401
Representative:
N/A
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
POSITION REVIEWOF NAME PHONE
Planner Planning/Historic Regulations Drew Larson ts41)736-1003
81 1-20-00002$-TYP2
A{taohrrvrsnl A
Page I of5
Case Number: 811-20-000024-TYP2
Proiect Location: 745 C Stree! Springfield, OR
Assessor's Map & Tax Lot:
17-03-35-13; TL 11600
Zoning: Low Density Residential
Application Submitted Date: |an. 30, 2020
Historic Commission Notice: Feb. 13,2020
Public Notice: Feb. 5, 2020
Decision Issued Date: Mar. 17,2020
Appeal Deadline Date: April L,2020
Associated Applications: None
d
*
lI
L
E
i, I
I
I
:
'l
ni
{
I
ri
t
5G
rG.{.{H=:
E$T
1,
: rl-
t
lr
i
'rI
This is one of several houses owned and possibly built by Henry Cogill, the street pavement inspector of
1911. He owned the property from 1910 to 7920."
REVIEW PROCESS: SDC section 5.1-130 (The Development Review Process) states that Type II
applications shall be distributed to the Development Review Committee and the Historical Commission
for comments. Type II decisions are made by the Director after public notice, but without a public
hearing, unless appealed. This application was accepted as complete on fanuary 30,2020. This decision
is issued on the 48th day of the 120 days mandated by the state
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 l4-day comment period on the
application ISDC 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 February 5,2020; one comment
was received in support of the proposal.
Public Comment: Nick Gillaspie,344 8th St., Springfield,OR97478; "l suppose this email isn't
needed, but please place it in the 'yes, let Ms. Meyer do whatever she wants' column! That house has been
an eyesore for MANY years and she is doing us all a favor by updating it. I certainly hope no codes or
Washburne rules are used to stop her from accomplishing what she has requested."
StaffResponse: All work proposed by Ms. Meyer meets all applicable code criteria and Historic Design
Guidelines.
PROCEDURAL FINDING: In accordance with SDC 5.1-130 the applicant was forwarded to the Historical
Commission on February 13,2020 and provided the following comments regarding all proposed work:
o The proposed eastern addition is compatible and distinguishable as new. It's positioning to
maintain the home's original fagade is in keeping with the Historic Design Guidelines.
81 |-20-000021-TYP2 Type II Historical Review Page 2 of5
Ilil
I
{Google
..';, '-t .'.--.-- , . 21r_
,.,. ?
I-
LE
{rr\
t
o The rear addition/reconstruction is to the rear of the home and is compatible by continuing the
hipped roof and original lines of the home.
o Placing the home on a foundation is supported.
o Windows on primary facades must be of wood composite; the primary fagades are the portions of
the home visible for the C Sreet right of way. The provided spec sheet for the window
replacements show wood construction.
o The applicant has taken necessary steps to preserve the architectural features ofthe home and
they must be maintained throughout construction.
Staff Response: Staff has incorporated the Historic Commission's comments into the staff report and
provided direct responses below.
Staff agrees with all Historic Commission DRC comments and has only conditioned the land use
decision based on inspections during and post construction to ensure nothing has been altered.
a
DECISION
Type II Historical Review approval as of the date of this letter, subject to the conditions and
recommendations described herein.
CRITERIA FORAPPROVAT (SDC Section 3.3-945 Maior and MinorAlteration 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 house with this proposal. The proposed repairs and additions are not a substantial
exterior alteration and are therefore permitted.
Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 1. 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 seek to create an earlier appearance are
prohibited.
Finding: All proposed removals and repairs, and additions, are proposed to maintain the existing
historic appearance by matching historic characteristics of the home including lap siding and
windows.
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.
81 1-20-000024-TYP2 Type II Historical Review Page 3 of 5
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: The home and garage appears to be in original condition and all proposed work will meet
applicable Historic Design Guidelines and applicable criteria.
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.
5. Distinctive stylistic features and examples of local or period craftsmanship which characterize
a Historic Landmark Site or Structure shall be retained.
Finding: There are no planned removals of local period craftsmanship at this time. However, the
applicant shall not remove any architectural features including, but not limited to, siding, trim,
bargeboard, 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
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 proposes to repair the existing shiplap siding and replace as necessary with
Iike for like cove shiplap siding materials.
Finding: The applicant proposes to replace the existing window casings with like decorative
materials. The replacement shall be of wood construction to match as close as possible to original
qualities.
Conclusion: As submitted, 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 environment.
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.
81 1-20-000024-TYP2 Type II Historical Review Page 4 of5
Finding: The applicant proposes to construct an addition extending from the eastern fagade. The
addition is setback 10'from the front fagade to maintain the original house lines. The hipped roof,
matching existing hipped rool will be approximately 2-3 feet below the main ridge line to further set
it apart from the historic home.
Finding: The applicant proposes to reconstruct the shed roof addition to the rear of the home by
extending the foundation and hipped roof to be in line with the original home.
Finding: The applicant proposes to match siding, windows, and hipped roof of the existing home with
tall, narrow one-over-one wooden windows and cove lapped siding.
Finding: The proposed additions are compatible with the district and existing historic site, but are
still distinguishable from the original home.
Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 8. No additional work shall take place
outside the approved land use decision without additional historic review applications.
DECISION
Type II Historical Review approval as of the date of this letter.
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE
Upon completion, the applicant shall call Andrew Larson at (541) 736-1003 or by email at
alarson(ospringfield-or.gov to photograph the building for City archives.
APPEAL: This Type II Historic Review decision is considered a decision of the Director and as such may
be appealed to the Planning Commission. The appeal may be filed with the Development Services
Department by an affected party. Your appeal must be in accordance with SDC 5.3-100, Appeals. An
Appeals application must be submitted with a fee of $250.00. The fee will be returned to the applicant if
the Planning Commission approves the appeal application.
In accordance with SDC 5.3-115.8 which provides for a tS-day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil
Procedures, Rule 10(c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 PM
on April 1,2O2O.
81 t-20-000024-TYP2 Type ll Historical Review Page 5 of5
E
NGFIELD CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
b DEVELOPMENT & PUBUC WORKS
225 5th St.
SPRINGFIELD, OR97477
OREGON
Selah Meyer
1t146 Luella Street
Eugene, Or 974Ot
CTTY OF SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT & PUBUC WORKS
225 5th st.
SPRINGFIELD, OR97477
Nick Gillaspie
344 St,' Street
Springfield, Or 97478
/(f:atd^nNot"{- 6