The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNotice PLANNER 8/31/2010 , -. . r RECEIVED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE AUG 3 1 l009 BY:~~f ~~ I D t., p~ 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 Technician, I prepa~d and caused to be . mailed copies of J>R.t.2.00q-OCO~ p~ <1> ~- ~ ~ (See attachment "A") on ~ . 2009 addressed to (see ~. p Attachment B"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with 01~ ~ .> postage fully prepaid thereon. KA~~ d)ad~ STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane ~ J{ . 2009. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur, Progr~ Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: ~. /(;/11 . OFFICiAl SEAL DEVETTE KELL V NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON COMMISSION NO. 420351 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG, 15, 2011 My Commission Expires: 7;/15/11 . . TYPE I HISTORIC REVIEW, STAFF REPORT & DEOSION Project Name: 540 "E" Street windows Project Proposal: replace an existing window and add a new window Project Location: 540 "E" Street Case Number: DRC2009-00033 Assessor's Map: 17-03-35-24/03700 Zoning: LDR Low Density Residential Historical Commission Meeting: 08/11/09 Applicatiou Submitted Date: 08/13/09 Decision Issued Date: 08/3 1/09 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: Jonathan Siegle 540 E Street Springfield, OR 97477 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE Proiect Mana"er Plannin" Tara Jones 736-1003 Community Services Buildin!! David Bowlsbv 736-1029 PROPOSAL The applicant proposes to make two changes to the east side of the house located at 540 E Street. He proposes to replace the existing 2'x 3' casement kitchen window with a 4'x 6' double hung Marvin wood window. The second alteration is to add a new 5'x 3'6" slider-type Marvin wood window to the breakfast nook just north of the kitchen. DRC2009-00033 Type I Historical Review Page J of4 . . , BACKGROUND/ SITE INFORMA nON 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 remodeling, this house is classified as CompatiblelNon- Contributing in the Washburne Historic District. The District was entered in the National Register of Historic Places on February 10, 1987. According to the owner, the house originally had 940 square feet. In the 1970s a large box-like addition was constructed at the rear of the house. The house now has 2500 sf. REVIEW PROCESS In accordance with SDC 3.3-915 Band C, the Springfield Historical Commission reviews and makes recommendations to staff on Type 1 decisions. The Springfield Historical Commission reviewed this proposal at their August 11, 2009 meeting. They recommended that the window alteration and addition be approved as proposed. They determined that this application could be reviewed under the Type I process because the changes are being made to the non-original part of the house and it can't be seen from the street. 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) I. 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 house is an approved use. No new use is being proposed for the 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: The existing kitchen casement-style window is not original to the house. Finding: The proposed kitchen double hung window is similar in style to the original house windows. Finding: The new window for the breakfast nook is located in the 1970s addition to the house. 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 prohihited. Finding: The designs of the window replacements match the portion of the house in which they are located. The proposed kitchen window is located in the original house and matches windows in this portion of the house. The proposed breakfast nook window is located in the 1970s addition and matches the other window in the addition. Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 3. DRC2009-00033 Type I Historical Review Page 2 of4 . . 4. Changes that have taken place in the course of time are evidence ofthe 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: The only stylistic feature being replaced is the fairly recent and non-period kitchen window. 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 replacement kitchen window matches similar windows in the original part of the house. 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 window for the breakfast nook matches the window above it in the 1970s addition. 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: These two alterations to the Historic Landmark Structure will not impair the essential form and integrity of the structure. Conclusion: As submitted, this proposal satisfies Criterion 8. DRC2009-00033 Type I Historical Review Page 3 of4 . . , WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE Upon completion of the window replacement project, the applicant shall call Tara Jones at 736-1003 to photograph the window alterations to the house for City archives. If you have any questions please contact Tara Jones at (541) 736-1003 or by email at tiones@ci.soringfield.or.us. PREPARED BY: ~ Tara Jones ~ Planner I DRC2009-00033 Type J Historical Review Page 4 014 . DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Jonathan Siegle 540 E Street Springfield, OR 97477 . !3