The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNotice PLANNER 7/6/2010 . . . r RECEIVED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE JUL - 6 2010 8Y:I;~ ~~~~ / D 5 (J~ 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 ofthe Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. 2. I state that in my capacity as, Program Technician, I prepared and caused to be . mailed copies of DR1'20/{)-ooo/4 7(Jt/u <4 ~ - ~ ~ (See attachment nAn) on 7/ h .2010 addressed to (see /lfp-l:L - t1 Attachment Bn), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with alp Id postage fully prepaid thereon. ~~ STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane ~ (" . 2010. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur, gra eChnician, who acknowledged the foregoing. instrument to be their voluntary act Before me: txtj{fz 111 t,y' U . OfFICIAL SEAl. DEVETTE KELLY NOTARYPUBUC.OREGON COMMISSION NO. 420351 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15. 2011 My Commission Expires: S' /;5//1 , \ . . TYPE I HISTORIC REVIEW, STAFF REPORT & DECISION _NOPID.D ~. Project Name: 532 D Street Window Replacement Project Proposal: Replace wood windows w/ vinyl \~ \_~ " , J;. Case Number: DRC201O-00014 Project Location: 532 D Street Assessor's Map: 17-03-35-24/07500 Zoning: MDR Historic Commission Meetings: 02/09/1 0 03/08/1 0 04/13/1 0 Application Snbmitted Date: 05/05/10 Decision Issued Date: 07/06/ I 0 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: Carolyn Wells 532 D Street Springfield, OR 97477 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM NAME Tara Jones PHONE 541 736-1003 PROPOSAL The owner of 532 D Street wishes to remove her wood windows and replace them with double hung vinyl windows in the same style as the existing wood windows. She proposes to replace the two picture windows facing the street as well as 12 other windows. All windows will be replaced in existing openings with no changes in the trim or stops. BACKGROUND/ SITE INFORMA nON DRC20JO-OO014 Type I Historical Review Page 10J3 . . I' The house was built in the 1940s and is considered an example of American Vernacular World War II era housing. Based on its age and extensive alterations, the house is classified as Compatible/Non- contributing in the Washburne Historic District. The Washburn Historic District was entered in the National Register of Historic Places on February 10, 1987. The house includes a variety of types of windows some of which are not original to the house. REVIEW PROCESS In accordance with SDC 3.3-915 C, the Springfield Historic Commission reviews and may make recommendations to staff on Type I decisions. The Springfield Historic Commission reviewed this proposal at their February, March and April meetings. The Commission recommended that the application be approved to allow vinyl replacement windows throughout the house, including operable windows with grids on the front fayade. They noted that any trim that needs to be replaced should be replaced in kind. The decision to recommend allowing vinyl windows was based on the fact that the house was not a Contributing resource, it had been remodeled extensively and since the openings were not changed, wood windows could replace vinyl in the future. 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 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 shall not be permitted. Finding: The current residential use ofthe 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: 532 0 Street is a Compatible, but Non-contributing resource in the Washburne Historic District that has been substantially altered over time. Finding: Structurally the house will not be altered to install the windows. The window openings will not be changed. Finding: In the future, the structure could be restored by replacing the vinyl windows with wood. 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 vinyl windows will match the existing windows in terms of size of opening and general look. Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 3. DRC2010-000J4 Type J Historical Review Page 2 of3 r , , . . 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: 532 0 Street has no distinctive stylistic features or examples of period craftsmanship. 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: The proposed window design matches the basic design and visual qualities of the original even though they are made of a different material. 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 house is not being altered since the window openings, trim and stops will not be changed. 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 essential form and integrity of the Historic Landmark Structure will not be impaired by the replacement windows. Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 8. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE lfyou have any questions please contact Tara Jones at 541 736-1003 or by email attiones(a)ci.springfield.or.us. PREPARED BY: Tara Jones Planner I DRC20/0-000/4 Type IlIis/orical Review Page 3 of3 .'. . . DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 " Carolyn Wells 532 D Street Springfield, OR 97477 -f3