The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNotice PLANNER 3/30/2010 : .., . . REr"EIVED MAR 3 0 2010 By:n~~~ / of fef~ AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF OREGON) )ss. County of Lane ) I, Karen LaFleur, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows: 1. I state that I am a Program Technician for the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. 2. I state that in my capacity as, Program Te.chnician, Il?repared and c!lused.to be mailed copies of l>~2.0ID- ocoo8 YJfiU.u 4> ~ - ~ ~ 7~Z: (See attachment nAn) on (?,!<1o .2010 addressed to (see h/QKtm... 5;:::1 Attachment Bn), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. ~CWM ~ML,~ KA EN LaFLEUR STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane ~cJL 30 .2010. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur, Prog am Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: OFFICIAL SEAl DEVETTE KELLY NOTARY PUBlIC. OREGON COMMISSION NO. 420351 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15, 2011 ~/6f~ t/fq-/If . My Commission Expires: , : I' . . i TYPE I HISTORIC REVIEW, STAFF REPORT & DECISION Project Name: Flanery House Project Proposal: ADA Ramp -- . .:E~=jj Case Number: DRC20JO-00008 Project Location: 3 15 5th Street Assessor's Map: 17-03-35-24/14900 Zoning: CC Community Commercial Historical Commission Meeting: 02/09/10 Application Submitted Date: 03/02/1 0 ADA ramp to be located along rear of house Decision Issued Date: 03/30/10 Appeal Deadline Date: In accordance with (SDC 5.1-125.C), the Director's decision is The Final decision of the City. Associated Applications: Com2010-00328 APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Applicant/Owner: Pam Lawrence Executive Director McKenzie Personnel Systems 82 Centennial Loop Eugene, OR 97401 Contractor: McIntyre Construction 1500 Westec Drive Eugene, OR 97402 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE Proiect Manal!er Planninl! Tara Jones 54l 736-1003 Communitv Services Buildinl! Kip Kaufman 541 726-3623 PROPOSAL The new owners of the Flanery House wish to add an ADA accessible wheelchair ramp to the rear entrance of the structure. The ramp will run from the parking lot to the site of the existing sliding glass door. The proposal is for a concrete ramp with metal railings. It will not be attached to the structure and it is designed to be removable without affecting the integrity of the structure. Providing ADA wheelchair access will necessitate removal of the sliding glass door and wood deck. Neither the door nor the deck is original to the structure and according to the former owner were built in the 1980s. The applicant proposes to place an ADA accessible door DRC20JO-00008 Type I Historical Review Page I of 4 . . , \ within the existing sliding glass door opening. The new door including trim and siding will closely match the existing backdoor. The ramp will not be visible from the street. BACKGROUND/ SITE INFORMATION The Flanery House was built in the 1920s and is an example of Colonial Revival architecture. It is ranked as of Secondary Significance/Contributing in the Washburne Historic District. The District was entered into the National Register of Historic Places on February 10, 1987. The property is zoned CC Community Commercial. The house was converted to attorney's offices in the early I 970s. REVIEW PROCESS In accordance with SDC 3.3-915 C, the Springfield Historic Commission reviews and makes recommendations to staff on Type I decisions. The Springfield Historic Commission reviewed this proposal at their February 9th, 2010 meeting. They recommended that the application be approved provided that the new door matches the existing backdoor (glass) including trim and siding that is in the same style and material as the existing door. They noted that it was important to their decision that the ramp is removable without damaging the structure. DECISION Type I Historical Review approval as of the date of this letter, subject to the conditions described herein. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL (SDC Section 3.3-945 Major and Minor Altemtion Standards) 1. Any proposed use shall minimize exterior alteration of the Historic Landmark Site or Structure and its environment; uses that require substantial exterior altemtion shall not be permitted. Finding: The current zoning of the property is for commercial uses. Finding: The current use of the building is for professional offices. Finding: The structure does not have ADA access to serve the professional offices. Finding: The proposed use is for professional offices that will serve a disabled population and therefore they need to provide ADA access to the building. Finding: The ADA accessible ramp is proposed to be removable without affecting the integrity of the structure and therefore minimizes exterior alteration to the structure. Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 1. 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 sliding glass door and deck were added in the 1980s. They are not historic or in keeping with the historic qualities of the structure. Finding: No removal of historic material or distinctive architectural features is being proposed in this application. Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 2. DRC2010-00008 Type IlIis/oricol Review Page 2 oJ4 ,/ . . . I 3. All Historic Landmark Sites or Structures are recognized as products of tbeir own time. Alterations wbicb bave no bistoric basis and wbicb seek to create an earlier appearance are probibited. Finding: The proposed design of the new door will match the design of the existing backdoor. Finding: The proposed siding to fill in the rest of the sliding glass door opening will match the original siding. Condition 1: The design of the new door and trim shall match the design of the existing backdoor and its trim. Condition 2: The replacement siding for the sliding glass door opening shall match the original siding in kind of material and design. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, 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 changes have acquired significance in their own right, this significance shall be recognized. Finding: There are no changes to this structure that have acquired significance in its own right. Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 4. 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 historic stylistic features being replaced by this proposal. 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 features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural design, or the availability of different architectural elements from otber buildings or structures. Finding: There are no deteriorated architectural features being replaced under this proposal. 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 is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. Finding: The new door, trim and siding will complement the existing door, trim and siding. Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 7. DRC2010-00008 Type I Historical Review Page 3 aJ4 . . , , I , 8. New additions or alterations to Historic Landmark Structures shall not impair the essential form and integrity of the structure. Finding: The ADA ramp will not be attached to the structure and thus will not impair the essential form and integrity of the structure. Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 8. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Condition I: The design of the new door and trim shall match the design of the existing backdoor and its trim. Condition 2: The replacement siding for the sliding glass door opening shall match the original siding in kind of material and design. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE Upon completion of the ADA ramp project, the applicant must call Tara Jones at 541 736-1003 to photograph the alteration for City archives. If you have any questions please contact Tara Jones at 541 736-1003 or by email attiones@ci.soringfield.or.us. PREPARED BY: Tara Jones Planner I DRC2010-00008 Type / J /istarica/ Review Page 4 014 . . Charlie McClain McIntyre Construction 1500 Westec Drive Eugene, OR 97402 SPA'NGF'OLD ~ ~'l~i;/;II"I~~/;j'!!N!!J;I;j<l~~ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES . ~ 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Pam Lawrence Executive Director McKenzie Personnel Systems 82 Centennial Loop Eugene,OR 97401 [ ~"18')