HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 4/30/2010
, '
.
.
~
RECEIVED
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
STATE OF OREGON)
)ss.
County of lane )
APR 3 0 2010
'-
.
BY:~~ ~~
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 Tec~nician, I p.re~ared and c;ausec;l to be -rr
mailed copies of J)Rr_1 mq- ooo~ Jp.uJ 4))JQAO,,,u,"_ - ~"/zn>L.J.L-
(See attachment "A") on ,2010 addressed to (see .A'~
Attachment B"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with
postage fully prepaid thereon.
. ~~ fA~J~
KA N LaFLEUR
STATE OF OREGON, County of lane
~~ .,3 .2010. Personally appeared the above named Karen laFleur,
Program echnician, 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
~ /6tJV
My Commission Expires: "i? /15 It I
~
'.'
t .
.
.
TYPE II mSTORIC REVIEW,
STAFF REPORT & DECISION
Project Name: McKlin House Window Removal
s..r....
Project Proposal: Removal of one window on
the 6th Street side of the house
Case Number: DRC2009-00039
-
tli,
Project Location: 606 D Street
Assessor's Map: 17-03-35-24/07700
Zoning: LDR Low Density Residential
"'"
Historic Commission Meetings: 07114/09
10113/09
~ "
T'~~
""
t?e.f<,.e
Application Submitted Date: 10112/09
APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW TEAM
A""
Decision Issued Date: 04/3011 0
--
Appeal Deadline Date: 0511711 0
Associated Applications: Com2009-00870
',,\,
"'"
Applicant/Owner:
Alvin Schamber
606 D Street
Springfield, OR 97477
"'.~-' j I
~l'.ri~
""
Ll
,
- ,
~
Af+er
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
NAME
Tara Jones
PHONE
541736-1003
PROPOSAL
The applicant needs to remodel his downstairs bathroom to remove the tub and add a shower enclosure because
of physical limitations of one of the residents, This will necessitate removing the center (larger) window of a
three window set, putting the two smaller windows together and filling in the additional window space with
siding, All original materials including trim and siding will be used, The windows being proposed to be altered
are located on the west side of the house which is facing 6th Street,
DRC2009-00039
Type 1/ Historical Review
Page IoJ4
.
.
op
.
-,.
"',
BACKGROUND! SITE INFORMATION
lbe McKlin House was built in 1912 and is an excellent example of the Craftsman Bungalow style of
architecture. In 1983 the City Council designated the McKlin House as a City Historic Landmark. At
that time it was noted in the staff report that "the structure is one of the City's finest examples of
Craftsman Bungalow style and it retains most of the original features and siding". The house is ranked
as of Primary Significance/Contributing in the Washburne Historic District. The district was entered
into the National Register of Historic Places on February 10, 1987.
REVIEW PROCESS
In accordance with SDC 3.3-915 B, the Springfield Historic Commission reviews and makes
recommendations to staff on Type 11 decisions. The Springfield Historic Commission originally
reviewed this proposal at their July 14, 2009 meeting. They tentatively recommended approval for a
casement window to replace the existing three window set pending review of drawings showing the
proposal. The applicant then changed his proposal to the one being reviewed under this application:
removal of the center window and keeping the other two windows. The Historic Commission
reviewed this at their October 13, 2009 meeting. At that meeting, the Commission recommended that
the application be approved as proposed.
CO~NTSRECEIVED
Applications for Type 11 limited land use decisions require notification of property owners and
occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowing for a 14-day comment period on the
application per SDC 5.1-130. The property owner, applicant, if different, and parties submitting
written comments during the comment period have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision
for consideration. In accordance with SDC 5.1-130, notice was mailed to the property owners and
occupants within 300 feet of the subject property on October 14, 2009. One emailed comment was
mceived during the comment period:
.:. Anna Farr, no address given, stated that "I would suggest that the homeowners at 606 D move
the basement window over the center under the new 2 window set so that the house maintains
its symmetry. Right now all the basement windows are centered under the 1st floor window
sets, the removal of 1 of 3 windows in the 1st floor will create an imbalance where there wasn't
one before.
Staff Response: While Ms. Farr's suggestion would maintain symmetry of window placement, it
would also cause another alteration to the house to occur (movement of the basement window). Staff
finds that it would be better to minimize alteration of this Historic Landmark Structure. The Finding
under Criterion 2 below also addresses the issue of alteration. It should be noted that due to the
screening of existing landscaping neither the first floor window set nor the basement window under it
can be seen from the street.
DECISION
Type II Historical Review approval as of the date ofthis letter.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL (SDC Section 3.3-945 Major and Minor Alteration Standards)
DRC2009-00039
Type /I Historical Review
Page 2 oJ4
;;;,'
,,'
,-
,
.
.
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 Historic Landmark Structure is an approved use. No new use is
being proposed for this structure.
Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion I.
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: This proposal is the most minimal one possible (the removal of just one window of the three
window set) to achieve the applicant's purpose of an addition of a shower enclosure to the downstairs
bathroom. There is no significant alteration; all distinctive features remain intact.
Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 2.
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: The proposed alteration uses all existing materials and does not seek to create an earlier
appearance.
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 changes have acquired significance
in their own right, this significance shall be recognized.
Finding: There are no changes to this Historic Landmark 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: Two ofthe three existing windows are being retained. No new windows are being added.
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 other buildings or structures.
Finding: No new windows are being added and the siding being used to fill the space left by the window
removal will be the same as the existing siding in terms of type and design of materials.
Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 6.
DRC2009-00039
Type JJ Historical Review
Page 3 of4
.
.
, .
.....
,
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 Strnctures 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,
neighhorhood or environment.
Finding: The proposed alteration uses existing materials and therefore complements the architectural
features and design ofthe Historic Landmark Structure.
Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 7.
8. New additions or alterations to Historic Landmark Structures shall not impair the essential form
and integrity of the structure.
Finding: The proposed alteration is as minimal as possible retaining two of the existing windows and
therefore does not impair the essential form and integrity of the Historic Landmark Structure.
Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 8.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
None
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE
Upon completion of the window replacement project, the applicant shall call Tara Jones at 736-1003 to
photograph the house for City archives.
APPEAL: This Type II Historic Review decision is considered a decision ofthe 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.B which provides for a 15-day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil
Procedures, Rule lO(c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 PM on
May 17,2010.
If you have any questions please contact Tara Jones at (541) 736-1003 or by email at
ti ones@ci.springfield.or.us.
PREPARED BY:
Tara Jones
Planner I
DRC2009-00039
Type II Historical Review
Page 4 oJ4
. .
.
.
.,
Alvin Schamber
606 D Street
Springfield, OR 97477
. mM
1- X".. ... ~..
;
.;
(),Jl-A. jl;.., ,.-i
~lMJUAJL
16
,'" '~'\"
.
.
JONES Terry (~
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
JONES Terry (Tara)
Friday, April 30, 2010 10:47 AM
'anna@odd-dog.com'
JONES Terry (Tara)
Approval of Historic Review Application for 606 D Street
606 D st drc2009-00039 staff report. doc
Dear Anna,
In October I received your emailed comment on Historic Review application DRC2009-00039. Your comments are part
of the record and incorporated into the staff report and decision which is attached. I didn't have an address to send you
the decision, so by receiving this submittal you are retaining your appeal rights to this application. Please see the
sections titled "Comments Received" And "Appeal" in the attached staff report and decision for further discussion of
appeal rights. Please let me know if you have any questions.
:TtzraJones
Planner 1
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: 541 736-1003
Fax: 541 726-3689 .
tioneslalci. sprinofield. or. us
1