The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNotice PLANNER 2/6/2009 " . . ~ RECEIVED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE FEB 6 2009 BY:J[AiW db hp{'~ STATE OF OREGON) )ss. County of Lane ) I, Tara Jones, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows: 1. I state that I am a Planner 1 for the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. 2. I state that in my capacity as, Planner 1. I prepared and caused to be mailed copies of JlA'.C! taJ~- ooo~ ~ ~ lU.4./~;",,_ (See attachment "An) on to 2009 addressed to (see Attachment Bn). by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. ~~ TARA JONES ON, County of Lane D 2009. Personally appeared the above named Tara Jones, acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their volun1ary act. Before OFFICIAL SEAL DEVETTE KELlY . NOTARY PUBliC - OREGON MY COMMISSION NO. 420351 COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15, 20ll &F' KiLt<; My Commission Expires: ~!;1 / I Date Received: Planner: T J 2. /b<O/OC, I ' , . . TYPE I HISTORICAL REVIEW, STAFF REPORT & DECISION __Pla.D ~. Project Name: Herring Garage Project Location: 546 - 7"' Street The SW comer of E and 7"' Streets :.~:.n~'''".'.'"'!~III~'' i ''''~_.'.''''~~Al;'''' '," \.ihL: .\~ ." ~~ Project Proposal: Construct New Garage Case Number: DRC2008-00069 Assessor's Map: 17-03-35-24/04401 Zoning: LDR Historical Commission Meeting: 08112/08 and 09/09/08 Application Submitted Date: 09/18/08 Decision Issued Date: 02/06/09 Appeal Deadline Date: In accordance with (SDC 5.l-l25.C), the Director's decision is the final decision of the City. Associated Applications: None APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Applicant/Owner: Erin Herring 546 - 7"' Street Springfield, OR 97477 Contractor: Stephen Kneller 4520 High Street Eugene, OR 974>5 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE Proiect Manliller Planni",! Tara Jones 736-1003 Commun~ Services Building Dave Puent 726-3668 PROPOSAL The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage on the west side of her property. The garage will take access off of "E" Street. The garage will be 532 square feet in size and will also have a 60 square foot shed attached to the east side. It will be built using construction materials and color to match the existing house. Three small trees in the backyard will need to be removed to make room for the garage, but a large heritage apple tree will be preserved. The applicant proposes to replant three trees to replace the trees being removed. A DRC2008-00069 Type I Historical Review P)'ge I of 4 Dote RQcelved: 2 / t') (, / () c, Plenner: T J I , .- . . portion of the Laurel hedge facing "E" Street will need to be removed to make room for the driveway access. A gate is also proposed across the new driveway. BACKGROUND/ SITE INFORMATION The Bungalow style house at 576 - 7th Street was built in 1907 and is considered to be of Primary Significance (Contributing) on the National Register of Historic Places. The lot this house is located on was originally much larger and it had a detached carriage house. In 1997 the lot was partitioned (Journal No. 97-11-245) into two parcels. In 2002 a new house was built on the vacant lot. The Historical Commission under Case DRC2002-03080 approved the move ofthe carriage house to serve the new house. This left 576 - 7th Street without a garage. REVIEW PROCESS In accordance with SDC 3.3-915 B and C, the Springfield Historical Commission reviews and makes recommendations to staff on Type I decisions. The Springfield Historical Commission originally reviewed this proposal at their August I ih meeting. They recommended several design changes including reducing the pitch of the roof to more nearly match that of the house and requested that the revised plans be reviewed at their September meeting. The Commission reviewed the revised plans at their September 9th meeting and recommended approval based on the following changes: . center the garage doors; . add a belly band between floors to break up the expanse; and . recess the shed about two feet and adjust the side windows to break up the expanse. The proposal as submitted in this application incorporates all of these changes. DECISION Type I Historical Review approval is granted as of the date of this letter, subject to the conditions described herein. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL (SDC Section 3.3-945 Major and Minor Alteration 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 sball not be permitted. Finding: This site originally had a detached carriage house/garage. Finding: The proposal is for a detached garage designed to complement the bungalow-style house. Finding: The detached garage is sited so as to allow the preservation of the large heritage apple tree in the back yard. Condition 1: Orange construction fencing shall be placed to the drip line of the apple tree prior to commencement of construction activities. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, 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. . Date Received: 1-/06/ Dc:, I I Planner: T J DRC2008-00069 Type I Historical Review Page 2 of 4 . . Finding: The historic structure is not being altered and no historical material or architectural features are being proposed to be removed or altered. 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 appearauce are prohibited. Finding: The historic structure is not being 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 changes have acquired significance iu their own right, this significance shall be recognized. Finding: Nothing is being proposed under this application to alter significant changes to. the historic structure. Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 4. S. Distinctive stylistic features and examples of local or period craftsmanship which characterize a Historic Landmark Site or Structure shall be retained. Finding: No distinctive stylistic features are being proposed for removal. Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 5. 6. Deteriorated architectural features shaIl 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 ou 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 architectural features are proposed for replacement. Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 6. 7. New design for uudeveloped 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 proposed detached garage has been designed to complement the design of the bungalow- style house in terms of size, scale, color and construction materials. Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 7. 8. New additions or alterations to Historic Landmark Structures shall not impair the essential fo/m and integrity of the structure. Date Received: 9-@""jt'")'1 PI . TJ / I F. d' N dd" I' b . d ~ h h" anner. m mg: 0 a thons or a teratlons are emg propose lor t e tstonc structure. DRC2008-00069 Type I Historical Review Page 3 of4 . . Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 8. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Condition 1: Orange construction fencing shall be placed to the drip line of the apple tree prior to commencement of construction activities. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE . The applicant shall obtain a Building Permit within 90 days of this approval. The Building Permit shall be in conformance with the approved site plan attached to this approval. . Upon completion of the detached garage project, the applicant shall submit a set of front and side elevation photographs to the City. If this is a hardship to the applicant, call Tara Jones at 736-1003 and she will photograph the house for City archives. If you have any questions please contact Tara Jones at (541) 736-1003 or by email at ti ones{alci .spri n gfield.or .us. PREPARED BY: Tara Jones Planner I Date Received: Planner: T J Z/DC:.ldi I ' DRC2008-00069 Type I Historical Review . Page 4 of4 . .' . MENT SERVICES ~ DEPARTMENT STREET ELD, OR 97477 Erin Herring/Clayton McEachern 546 - 7th Street Springfield, OR 97477 SP",NG"'CD~ ~i;J:IINti;/I::II('J!/lO]:I.::(t['ll'~ ' WENT SERVICES _ '3 DEPARTMENT STREET oLD, OR 97477 Stephen Kneller 4520 High Street Eugene, OR 97405 . 13 ",... . bate Received: Planner: T J t/~/dI