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..
.' . ",' .--- ,"
.. ,.' . .
.:"
,','