Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 12/11/2009 " .' AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF OREGON) )ss. County of Lane . ) I, TerrY Jones, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as folloiNs: .1. I state that I am a Planner I for the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. 2. I state that in my capacity as, Planner I, I prepared and caused to be . mailed copies o( Di2C //\)\0 -0')1)%. nefi",a) ii:>ceSiev, -,'S-tl-wly(,( ~<;,-!---~...JJi2<. (See attachment "A") on ~(_ II : 200ffaddressed to (see Attachment B"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. ! ~ Terry Jones j ( () . ~_/\ STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane ~ I (. . 2009. 'Personally appeared the ~bove named Terry Jones, Planner I, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: . OFFiCIAL SEAL DEY!:TTE KELLY NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON COMMISSION NO. 420351 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15. 2011 ~.~ My Commission Expires: '6 j;~/// . t.Jut6 Received: Planner: T J i (./1/11&01 _..._It . TYPE I HISTORIC REVIEW, STAFF REPORT & DECISION Project Name: Stewart House Restoration Work Project Proposal: Removal of three accessory structures attached to the house and addition of handrails at the front and side steps Case Number: DRC2009-00036 Project Location: 214 Pioneer Parkway West NW comer of Pioneer Parkway West/A St. Assessor's Map: 17-03-35-32/02600 Zoning: MUC Mixed Use Commercial Historical Commission Meetiug: August 11,2009 Applicatiou Submitted Date: September 10, 2009 Decision Issued Date: December 11, 2009 Appeal Deadline Date: In accordance with (SDC 5.1-125.C), the Director's decision is the final decision of the City. Associated Applications: None APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Applicant/Owner: Bruce Felix/Audrey Schindler 214 Pioneer Parkway West Springfield, OR 97477 - '1 Stewart House after Restoration uate Received: I 'L J II /0'7 Planner: T J CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM I PO~ITlON I Prorect Manager I ~Yl1W OF "[annmg PROPOSAL I NAME Tara Jones IPHO~ I 736-IOa3 The new owner of the Stewart House wishes to remove features added to the house in the latter half of the 20th century. These features do not have historical integrity, but rather were tacked on to the outside of the house to allow for additional access into the house. The following features are being proposed for removal: 1) an exterior wooden stairway on the south side of the house running from grade to the portico roof; 2) wooden stairs on the south side of the house accessing French doors under the portico; and 3) a wooden ramp running from the south side of the house to the front porch on the east side. The applicant proposes to landscape the areas where DRC2008-00036 Type Illistorical Review Pagelaf4 . the portico stair and ramp were located and to replace the side stairs under the portico when a historically accurate design can be identified. In addition to these removals, the applicant.proposes to add wrought iron decorative handrails along the front and side stairs onto the front porch. The house currently has no handrails at . these locations. ;' , BACKGROUND/ SITE INFORMATION The Stewart House was built in 1906. The original July 1.980 survey describes the house and its historical significance as follows: The Harry Stewart House lies on the site of the original Elias Briggs land claim and right next to the original Spring. The house offers a unique contribution to the community architecturally, rests on a site which marks the hi~toric founding of the community, and was the home of an early pioneer... The Stewart House is also a significant corner-post of the former downtown district. In the town's earliest days, Mill Street formed the business district, and the Siewart House was one of the prominent nearby residences. Like his father, Harry Stewart played a significant role in the early formation of the town. He owned a general mercnandising store on the Old Mill Stree/ and served as postmaster for the town. The Stewart House is representative of the' "Transitional Box" style (1890-1910). The house is 2 1/2 stories andfaces squarely towards tHe east on its original site, an 18,800 square foot city lot. It is characterized by its box shape; an average-pitched hip roof with two hip-shaped dormJr windows; a 2nd story sleeping porch; an open front porch which extends across the front of the lower floor; an exterior chimney, made of layered red brick, which leads to two interior fireplaces; a shingled carriage entry attached to the south side of the house; regular shingled siding made of asbestos material;, and two types of windows, including "transitional" windows with one-over-one panes and windows with "shingle-style'" panes, both types secured by lead The front porch contains the original swinging bench located near the front door steps. Through Resolution No. 80-145 the Harry Stewart House was designated as a City Landmark by the Springfield City Council on June 2nd, 1980. . The 'Stewart House has been altered over the years. Most.notably, the balustrade at the top of the portico has been replaced with a parapet wall with' shingled siding matching the house and the sleeping porch has been enclosed. Also, two sets of stairs and a ramp were added to the south side of the house. . The removal of the stairs and ramp are being reviewed under this application. . REVIEW PROCESS In accordance with SDC 3.3-915 C, the SpringfielQ Historical Commission reviews and makes' recommendations to staff on Type I decisions. The Springfield Historical Commission reviewed this :1 proposal at their August II, 2009 meeting. They ~oted that the work had already been don~, but a 'I retroactive Type I application would be required to remove these non-historic features from the home. DECISION Dste Received: /1.-/ /'1 /0 '1: PI~nner: T J Type I Historical Review approval as ofthe date of this letter.. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL (SDC Section 3.3-945 Major and Minor Alteration Standards) DRC2008.00036 Type I Historical Review Page 2 of4 . 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 current residential use of the Stewa'1 House is the historic use for the structure. The proposed modifications are consistent with a residential use. No new use is being proposed for the structure. Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 1. 2. The distinguishing original qualities of the His~oric Landmark Site or Structure and its environment shall not be substantially altered. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive arehitectural features is prohibited unless an immediate hazard to public safety exists. " finding: Restoration is a historic preservation principle that is characterized by the process of returning a historic structure to its appearance in a particular time ofthe structure's history. The structure's significance to a particular time should outweigh the potential loss of materials and features that characterize the change of the building over time. Finding: In the case of the Stewart House, the additions of the stairs and ramp have taken away from the structure's original appearance. Removal of these alterations would restore the house to an appearance more closely in keeping with its original design. Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 2. 3. All Historic Landmark Sites or Structures are recognized as products of tbeir own time. Alterations which have no historic basis and which seek to ~reate an earlier appearance are prohibited. " Finding: The Historic Structure is being restored Tather than altered. Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 3. 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 ehanges have acquired significance in their own rigbt, this significance shall be recognized. '. Finding: The changes to the Stewart House that are being,removed do not have historical integrity and have not acquired historic significance. Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 4. 5. Distinctive stylistic features and examples of local or period craftsmanship wbich characterize a , Historic Landmark Site or Structure shall be retained. finding: No stylistic features are being removeq. 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 fea.tures, substan,tiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectnl'l\l design, or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures.. Date ReceiVed:J.]~J.f)--!OCj . F. d' N h' 1 ti b . I d' h" . Planner: T J 10 109: 0 arc Itectura eatures are elOg rep ace 10 t IS restoratIOn proJect. I DRC2008.00036 Type Ilfistoricat Review Page 3 of 4 Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies 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 1s compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. ' Finding:' No alterations or additions are being made to the Stewart House under this application. Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 7. I 8. New additions or alterations to Historic LanlImark Structures shall not impair the essential form and integrity ofthe structure. Finding: No new alterations or additions are being made to the Stewart House under this application. Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 8. DIRECTOR'S DECISION ,. Type 1 Historical Review approval for this application is granted as of the date of this letter. If you have any questions please contact Tara. Jones at (541) _ 736-1003 or by email at ti ones1al.ci.sorin!!field.or. us. PREPARED BY: Tara Jones Planner I Date Received: { "L/ (I (0<7 Planner: T J , DRC2008.00036 Type I Historical Review Page 4 of4 Bruce Felix" and Audrey Schindler 214 Pioneer: Parkway West Springfield. OR 97477 .... .::";' ;.,.. ;';1 ....;.. ....... .... ,-::" , .. .. ...D~teReCeived: :f=)/anner: TJ .. ' .. -- leI((. /(;:)7.. .' . ",' .--- ," .. ,.' . . .:" ,','