Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2011-04-18 ApprovedLAKE OSW'EGO Centennial 1910.2010 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Development Review Commission Minutes April 18, 2011 CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL Chair Gregg Creighton called the Development Review Commission (DRC) meeting of April 18, 2011 to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. Members present: Chair Gregg Creighton, Vice Chair Don Richards, Brent Ahrend, Bob Needham and Jeffrey Peck Members excused: Frank Rossi and Peter Scott Staff present: Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Reynolds, Administrative Support MINUTES (None) FINDINGS LU 10-0063, a request by KCM Properties, LLC Chair Creighton moved to approve LU 10-0063-1757 Findinas, Conclusions and Order. Mr. Richards seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. PUBLIC HEARING LU 11-0004, a request by Dennis and Marcie McAuliffe for approval of a Development Review Permit for a Major Alteration to a Historic Landmark in order to construct several additions to an existing single family dwelling, including replacement of windows. The property is located at 1097 Chandler Road (Tax Lot 5700 of Tax Map 21E 03CD). Chair Creighton opened the public hearing. Mr. Boone outlined the applicable procedure and criteria. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts, bias and conflict of interest. Mr. Ahrend, Mr. Richards and Chair Creighton each reported a site visit. Chair Creighton reported ex party contacts over the years with Mr. Chek, the applicants' designer. However, he declared that he had no financial interest or conflict of interest. No one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Staff Report Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner, presented the April 8, 2011, Staff Report. She advised the property was listed on the City's Historic Landmark Listing as C.B. Van Houten House. The applicants proposed to construct additions and replace most of the window sashes that were not on the additions. She added 18 letters in support and four in opposition to the record, as well as two new exhibits: E-14 (Existing Windows) and F-6 (Supplemental Narrative). Ms. Hastay advised LOC 58.02.125 applied to major alteration of an historic landmark. It only applied to the exterior of the structure. The house was described on Cultural Resources Inventory Field Form 1988-1989 (Exhibit F-3) as an excellent example of the "Tudor Revival" style and in good condition. She advised there were no other adopted design guidelines that affected the subject property besides the Historic Resources code and the Inventory. She discussed the Major Alteration criteria: • LOC 58.02.125 allowed alterations and additions that did not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the Landmark. • It would also allow alterations that would diminish its historical or architectural significance if an Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) analysis showed that would benefit the community more than preserving the resource in its present condition. Ms. Hastay also noted the Major Alteration guidelines to aid DRC deliberations in evaluating the impact of the proposed changes on the historical and architectural significance of the landmark. Ms. Hastay referred to elevations of the proposed additions. They were to be sided in combed brick and horizontal siding that matched the existing exterior materials. The applicants had provided a brick that matched the color and texture of the existing brick. Staff recommended a condition of approval that the second floor gable on the west elevation was to incorporate the peak details shown on the other elevations. Staff found the additions did not diminish the historic and architectural significance of the landmark. The noteworthy elements that made the house a significant example of the Tudor Revival style would be preserved. The additions also had architectural and historic integrity as they reflected the proportion, massing, scale, detailing, textures and materials of the original house. The windows in the additions complemented the original windows with regard to muntin pattern and size, and also replicated the typical wall location for Tudor Revival style. Ms. Hastay discussed the replacement window sashes the applicants proposed to install in existing window openings in the rest of the structure. Tudor Revival style windows were typically true divided light, single pane, double hung, wood sash windows with either rectangular or diamond-shaped panes of glass. The proposed sashes were double paned, simulated divided light with fixed interior and exterior gridded muntins. A photograph in the record offered a comparison of an existing window sash and the proposed window sashes installed side by side. The proposed sash design replicated the original sash's muntin size and profile as much as possible. The proposed pane sizes and shapes matched the original pattern. Staff found that the design of the windows proposed on the additions and replacement window sashes in the rest of the structure created little loss in architectural significance. The fact that the proposed sashes were made of aluminum clad wood rather than wood and were simulated divided light rather than true divided light might create a minimal impact to historic significance. The applicable criteria allowed a change that negatively impacted historic significance through an ESEE analysis. Ms. Hastay explained an ESEE analysis weighed the community benefits of allowing an alteration that may impact historical significance with the community benefits of preserving the structure as it currently exists. She discussed each component of the analysis. She corrected the staff report to show that the total cost of repairing the existing wood sashes ranged up to approximately $155,000 (not $121,000) if storm windows were included in the cost. She noted a stated purpose in the code was to "protect property owners from extraordinary costs" of implementing the code. A table in the report showed the proposed sashes were significantly less expensive than true divided light, wood sash replacements or repairing the exiting window sashes. Staff found there was an economic benefit to the community to avoid extraordinary costs to implement the historic resources code. The code ensured preservation of structures that were architecturally and historically important to the City. But there was some flexibility built into the code that would balance property owners' needs with historic preservation. The code City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 12 Minutes of April 18,2011 outright allowed sash replacement. Alterations that were complementary to the style and matched the original appearance as much as possible were allowed through a review process. The proposed Hurd window sashes replicated the Tudor Revival style, so there was a social benefit to a positive public perception of the historic resources code and its ability to balance different needs in the community. Any work on the windows — either replacement or repair of the original windows was going to have environmental costs. Staff found there was an environmental cost for either choice. The applicants provided an energy efficiency analysis of the proposed windows (page 13 of the staff report) that showed double pane windows are more energy efficient than repairing single pane windows and putting storm windows on top of them. Staff found there was a benefit to the community to encourage the energy efficient choice, given that the visual and architectural impact of the double pane windows has been minimized. The applicants submitted Exhibits E-14 and F-6 to demonstrate that the original windows were not in the best condition. Based on that information, staff found that preserving the original windows in their present condition was not viable and the proposed window sash replacement met the criteria. There was no impact to the architectural significance due to the sash design and there was minimal impact to the historic significance. The community benefit of allowing the aluminum clad, simulated divided light window sashes outweighed the benefit of preserving the original windows as they currently exist. Staff recommended approval of the application subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. During the questioning period, Ms. Hastay estimated that the conversion of the old garage and construction of the second floor addition above it had been done in the 1950s. There was some controversy about when the house was originally built. The Inventory said 1939, but some said it might be 1931. Applicants Dana Krawczuk, Ball Janik LLP, SW Main St., Portland, Oregon 97204, represented the applicants. Dennis McAuliffe. Scott Court (97034), applicant, and Phil Chek, Phil Chek and Associates, Inc. B Avenue, were also present to testify. Ms. Krawczuk reported they agreed with the recommended conditions of approval. She pointed out they had submitted additional evidence. She explained the applicants proposed to insert new sashes into the existing window frames. The result would be a cohesive design of windows. Because of changes that had been made to the home over time there were currently three different window types on it. She said the proposed sashes were indistinguishable in appearance from the original sashes. The difference was they were simulated divided light, clad in aluminum, and painted. The photographs showed it would be hard to tell the difference, especially from the public space. She noted a stated purpose of the historic preservation was to "protect private property owners against extraordinary costs occasioned by the application of this chapter." Exhibit F-2 showed a very significant difference in costs. Ms. Krawczuk discussed the approval criteria. The home was on the City's landmark list, but not on any federal list or in any historic district. The only applicable approval criteria were the two under LOC 58.02.135(3). The applicants said the proposed alteration will not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the landmark; but if the DRC found the historical or architectural significance of the landmark was altered, it should go through the ESEE analysis to weigh community benefit. The City code contained guidelines to help them with that decision. The guidelines did not include any kind of federal guidelines or National Park Service or National Trust guidelines. Perhaps the federal rules were more restrictive because there was some financial incentive connected with them. But there were no financial incentives for being on the City's Listing. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 12 Minutes of April 18,2011 The guidelines Ms. Hastay had summarized suggested there was flexibility in material type when the entire project was considered. Ms. Krawczuk held the proposed window sashes were consistent with the guidelines. She also advised that maintenance and repair actions were exempt from design review. The applicants contended that the proposed sash replacements were maintenance and repair, and thus were exempt. The approval criteria for maintenance and repair said that replacement materials were to be consistent in appearance with the original historic material. "Consistent" did not mean it had to be an exact replica. The applicants stated that what they proposed was consistent with the original windows because the appearance was so similar. Therefore, the window sashes were completely exempt from design review. Ms. Krawczuk said the condition of existing windows was a critical issue. It explained why the applicants were spending an additional $55,000 for windows. Existing windows were deteriorated and inoperable. The applicants had small children and they were concerned about energy and safety considerations as well. Mr. McAuliffe explained that the applicants owned 1097 Chandler, but were not living it. The process had been ongoing for six months and that was taking its toll. He pointed out photographs and the room-by-room assessment showed the inconsistent "mish-mash" of types of windows in the house. Of the total of 55 windows only 19 worked properly. Components were broken and there was dry rot. Some could be opened, but not shut. Only 30 windows had storm windows. They were discolored and 10 storm windows were falling apart. The windows above the garage were 4' x 2', but the windows in the main part of the house were 3' x 2'. The proposed new windows would make all the windows consistent and return the house to its historic state. The house had wonderful history, but it needed updating. Ms. Krawczuk discussed the issue of when the applicants learned the house was on the Landmark Designation Listing. They had just learned of an early email the Building Official had sent to the builder said the house was a Landmark and advised that design review was required prior to approval of a building permit for an addition. The email said nothing about the windows. The builder might not have known the window sash replacement was subject to historic design review, or he might have interpreted the code the way the applicants did: sash replacement was regular maintenance and repair not subject to design review. She said if her clients had known design review was required they would not have ordered $55,000 worth of windows. But the fact that they bought them did not matter as far as approval criteria. What mattered was whether the window replacements were consistent with the original windows historically and architecturally. She held they were. Ms. Krawczuk discussed HRAB's preference for wavy glass. Many of the original panes had been replaced over time so the original windows were not universally wavy glass. She reported it was not possible to have double pane, energy efficient, windows with the wavy glass they described. Mr. Chek was the applicants' designer. He said they wanted to update the house. The windows were its worst attributes. They did not know it was on the Landmark List until they applied for a permit in mid-September. A City planner called on October 1 to advise them they needed to submit pre-application materials so the City could confirm the applicants were designing additions that were in keeping with the style of the rest of the house. He described and presented digital images of the three proposed additions. He pointed out what the public would see when driving by. He indicated the new windows would be the same size and the applicants were just changing the sashes in the existing ones. If they kept the storm windows the windows would not meet the energy code and the grids would not be visible. He explained a dormer was to be pushed out so there was an adequate width passageway. The house would feature timbered detail on the siding on the rear of the house that the HRAB had suggested. He pointed out that photographs showed the replacement sash was almost identical to the existing City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 12 Minutes of April 18,2011 sash. The painted aluminum had no glare, the same color, and the same grid as the original sash. He said most existing windows did not open. He referred to photographs that showed one could not see the grid through the storm windows and they were fogged up. He said the applicants had inventoried existing windows and found dry rot, windows that would not open, and fogged windows. He stressed the applicants had children. They wanted to remove the storm windows and have better, more efficient windows that operated correctly for quick ingress and egress. During the questioning period, Mr. Chek clarified the applicants proposed sash replacement not new window openings in walls. Existing sashes would be taken out of the existing frames, the frames would remain, and the center sections would be replaced. He clarified a slide that showed a bricked window was on the back of the house on a wall of the garage that had been converted to a family room in the 1950s. He reported that room had three styles of windows. He explained it was important to have energy efficient windows because most of the house did not have insulation. He confirmed the applicants proposed to match the new gable with existing gables and the size of the dormer. They planned to recreate the chevron "S" from a front detail in the rear of the house. Chair Creighton commented it looked larger in the drawing than it had looked when he visited the site. Proponents Glade French, Kelok Rd. (97034), indicated that he and his wife were very disappointed about the way the community had treated the applicants' family who were seeking to make small changes that would bring their home up to today's living standards. He opined that the plans did not diminish the historic or architectural value of the home to the community. The double- paned, energy efficient windows looked very similar to the existing windows. He observed the City needed to attract more young families, but it could not do that if it priced them out. Janice Follev, Meadowlark Ln. (97034), held the applicants should be allowed to replace the windows for the health and safety of their small children. Lead paint was a safety concern. There was huge social impact if people could not make homes safe for their children. If they could not replace the windows she would not be comfortable bringing her child over to visit. Kristen Fish, Crest Dr. (97034), testified she was a neighbor who was not opposed to the additions and window replacement. The changes would not distract from the historic nature of the home. Jim Kraven, Chandler Rd. (97034), reported the subject house had been on the market for at least two years. The applicants wanted to salvage it and the proposed changes would make it a much better home. He was not impressed with it as a Tudor house because there were lots of obvious revisions that had been made to it both inside and out. He said it was a problem for the neighbors to have an empty house nearby that no one would buy because it could not be fixed. Opponents Rhonda Allen, Foothills Rd. 97034, ceded her time to Marylou Colver. Marylou Colver, Leonard St., submitted Exhibit G-201: She testified that her own home was on the Landmark Designation List. She had founded the Lake Oswego Historic Home Tour and was founding the Lake Oswego Preservation Society. She had known the former owners of the subject home. She questioned the applicants' assertion that they purchased the windows before they knew the house was historic. Staff had informed them about the designation on September 29, 2010, and the applicants had ordered City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 12 Minutes of April 18,2011 the new windows on October 6, 2011. They had an experienced realtor and designer. They could have done a simple Google search. Mr. Chek had admitted at a pre-application conference that he had seen the house on the 2008 tour so it was reasonable to assume he knew it was historic. She presented a slide tour of the interior of the house, including the now historic 1940's addition. She recalled it had been meticulously maintained and she had seen no evidence of deferred maintenance. She suggested the repair cost estimates in Exhibit F-2 might be unnecessarily inflated. She held the photograph in Exhibit E-10 was not adequate evidence to show that every one of the 39 windows was deteriorated. She discussed the architecture. The Van Houten House was known for its architectural excellence and it had been cited as the representative example of the Tudor Revival style in the Pacific Northwest in a Lewis and Clark College professor's 1978 study. It had been made a City landmark and was protected by LOC Chapter 58. She advised the architecture was much more significant than the Inventory Sheet indicated. Prominent architect Roscoe Hemenway designed it in 1931. It was the only Lake Oswego landmark that was a confirmed example of his Tudor Revival style design. There were six others in Portland. She quoted a source that reported that "even today when a Hemenway house is sold both realtors and prospective buyers find that the Hemenway name adds value." She said there was a real economic benefit in retaining the house in its present condition. Major alterations such as additions and window replacement would diminish its value. The house had been part of the 2008 Tour of Historic Homes. 300 people had paid $25.00 each to see the homes. There was an economic benefit to the community to retain the house in its current condition. The tour had educational and social benefits beyond the immediate community. An Oregonian article at the time reported it was a very soundproof house, even with so many windows and being on a corner of two busy streets. Ms. Colver was not sure if Hemenway designed the wing that was added in the 1940s. She said the proposed alterations would affect every elevation of the house and would seriously compromise its historic integrity. Ms. Colver addressed the criteria. She agreed with staff that the proposed alterations would diminish the historical significance of the landmark. However she disagreed with staff's conclusions and she questioned whether it was appropriate to use an ESEE analysis for this purpose. She listed considerations that had been omitted from the staff analysis: • The applicants ordered the Hurd windows after being informed the house was historic. They could have avoided "extraordinary costs." • The House was a significant building designed by a prominent architect. Major alterations would compromise the design and diminish the value of the applicants' and the community's asset. • Historic preservation was a vehicle for heritage tourism and brought revenue to the city. • The house was the City's only confirmed example of Hemenway's Tudor style on the Landmark Designation List. • It had educational value to community. • It created a sense of place that distinguished Lake Oswego from other communities. • It exemplified the historical, architectural and cultural heritage of Lake Oswego residential development. • 30% of the time replacement windows will be replaced within ten years. Retaining the original windows kept them out of the landfill. Each year Americans create 120 million tons of waste from the demolition of buildings. • Conserving existing materials reduced the carbon footprint because new materials such as Hurd windows were often not sourced locally and had to be shipped across the country. • It could take up to 240 years to recoup enough money and energy savings to pay back the cost of installing replacement windows. • More heat was typically lost through the roof and un-insulated walls than through windows. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 12 Minutes of April 18,2011 • Historic wood windows — maintained, weather-stripped, and with a storm window - could be just as energy efficient as new windows. Ms. Colver quoted from an article in Fine Building Magazine that indicated, "other than a lighted match, nothing will ruin the charm of an old house faster than ripping out the original double hung windows. " She stressed that with each major alteration and demolition the City lost another piece of its past. She noted staff had reported the interior had already been "completely gutted." She asked the DRC to not allow the exterior to also be gutted. She asked them to deny the application because it did not satisfy the approval criteria. She held it would be a travesty of Chapter LOC 58 protections if every applicant were allowed to construct an ESEE so they could be allowed to make major alterations to an Historic property. It put all the Landmarks at risk and meant the City was not meeting its obligations under Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 5. Kasev Holwerda, Vice Chair of HRAB, spoke for the Board. She submitted Exhibit G-204: She reported that she and/or HRAB member Tim Mather had attended three of the pre- application meetings with Mr. Chek. They had worked with Mr. Chek and he had agreed to make some of the changes they suggested. They successfully convinced him to scale back on excessive Tudor ornamentation. She advised the HRAB's purview was the way the front of the house looked to the public— it had no say regarding how the back looked. She reported they were still concerned about the kitchen addition windows and they could not approve the kitchen addition brick. They wanted to know the source of the replacement bricks to be used and if there was enough brick. They wanted assurance the brick sample shown had not come off some other part of the house. Ms. Holwerda explained that she and Mr. Mather had not known the house was a Roscoe Hemenway design when they told Mr. Chek they would be amenable to use of new bricks as long as they matched the existing brick. Ms. Holwerda advised Oregon Administrative Rule 660-023-0200(3) was that local governments were to follow the recommendations in Secretary of the Interior Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Properties when they developed local preservation programs. The National Trust for Historic Preservation was the governing body and interpreted those standards. Ms. Holwerda's submittal included National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program information regarding: • "New Additions to Historic Buildings" (marked as Exhibit A); • "Evaluating Historic Windows for Repair or Replacement" (marked as Exhibit B); • "Documentation Requirements for Proposed Window Replacement" (marked as Exhibit C); • "Replacement Windows that Meet the Standards" (marked as Exhibit D). Ms. Holwerda explained she had included Exhibit A because it talked about the compatibility of additions. She said she and Mr. Mather had made it clear to the applicants that wood windows were the appropriate replacements for wood windows in historic homes - if the windows needed to be replaced. When they asked for documentation that Hurd windows had been used in other historic properties the applicants had provided pictures of the Washington Pavilion and Magic House, which were not on a national or city landmark list. She held that one picture of a foggy window was not enough evidence that all the windows were not working properly or that every single window had deteriorated and needed to be replaced. She lived in a circa 1927 Landmark house and only two of her windows had been completely replaced. That was because she maintained and repaired them. She suggested the applicants likely asked vendors for bids to replace the windows and that was why they got extremely high bids. Ms. Holwerda pointed out Exhibit B called for deteriorated features to be repaired rather than replaced. Repairs should be the first option considered. She contended the applicants had not City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 12 Minutes of April 18,2011 done that. The standards called for good quality photographs that clearly depicted the full range of conditions. The applicants had only submitted one picture of a foggy window. The standards said that factors like energy performance were not reasons to replace a window, but could be considered in conjunction with deterioration, establishing a need for window replacement. But in many cases the requirements can be met without losing the historic windows. Studies showed that the energy performance of historic windows could be significantly improved by adding storm windows and weather stripping or by replacing the glazing or the sash. Exhibit C talked about the documentation requirements for window replacement. The HRAB recommended that the street facing windows needed to be wood. Exhibit D said replacement windows on any highly visible elevation of buildings of three stories or less must match the historic windows in all detail and in material: wood for wood, and metal for metal. HRAB did not believe aluminum was an historic material on a street facing building. She included in her submittal pictures from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Ms. Holwerda referred to the photograph that showed window condensation. She reasoned that window condensation depended on the time of year. She questioned whether the applicants would have known about that problem in October when they ordered windows. She had not seen condensation when she was in the house during the tour. She held the fact the Inventory Form did not mention the house had wood windows did not mean they were not important to the house. She addressed consistency of windows. She said it was normal to replace them over time in an historic home. HRAB did not require 100% consistency. She discussed economic hardship. She held it could have been prevented by due diligence. She noted the City had 72 Landmarks and only 45 of them were homes. The applicants should appreciate that and try to work with the HRAB. They could have purchased a non-Landmark. HRAB believed changing the windows would completely impact the historic and architectural significance of the house. Corinna Campbell-Sack, Durham St.,(97034) testified that she had photographed the houses on the 2007 and 2008 Historic Home Tours and had been the docent in the Van Houten House. It was well maintained, carefully updated where necessary and renovated where needed. The windows and façade were in good condition. Replacing them with Hurd windows would lose the definition white and dark shadow line that one could not get without a true divided light window. She urged the DRC to deny the request to replace the windows and to encourage the applicant to restore them. Erin O'Rourke-Meadors, Coventry Ct., (97035) submitted Exhibit G-203: She related that she had helped found the Historic Home Tour and was a local historian. She observed the staff report acknowledge that the proposed architectural changes would diminish the historical resource. She questioned whether staff should have used an ESEE analysis to evaluate the application; the adequacy of the analysis; and the extent to which staff relied on representations of the applicants. She indicated the applicants had not fulfilled their responsibility for due diligence. She noted the applicants had immediate plans to expand the house prior to their occupancy. One of them was a member of the banking and home mortgage industry. They used an experienced land use attorney. She indicated the applicants' representations regarding the need for functional updates and repair of deferred maintenance were not credible. Ms. Colver's photographs and testimony by those familiar with the house revealed the house was a well-maintained and appropriately updated home. She held the requested code changes were not reasonable under LOC 58.02.135(3). Less than two weeks after they had submitted a request for a building permit the applicants were notified by the Planning Department that the home was on the City's Landmark Designation List. The following day their designer arranged for a pre-application conference and talked with a planner about the implications of the designation. Despite this knowledge the applicants order$55,000 worth of City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 12 Minutes of April 18,2011 new and replacement windows a week later, on October 6, 2010 (see Exhibit E-11). Ms. O'Rourke-Meadors' submittal included a document she had prepared, "Summary of Hurd Window Purchase." It showed a total of 55 aluminum clad windows and aluminum clad wood sash kits. She argued that it was not reasonable for the applicants to ask the DRC to consider the cost of the windows they ordered in the decision. She addressed the contention the sash replacement was "maintenance and repair." She clarified that when the code called for, "consistent," that implied it had to be the same material. It did not indicate there was no need to utilize the original materials. She assumed that if the code intended to allow flexibility it would likely have used the word, "compatible" instead. Ms. O'Rourke-Meadors held the staff conclusions relied too much on the applicants' representations that the proposed changes were reasonable due to functionality, and that window replacement, rather than repair, was reasonable because the windows were inoperable. She said evidence in the record demonstrated the home had been appropriately updated. She said evidence in the record made the staff conclusion that aluminum clad, simulated divided light windows were consistent questionable. She held that staff relied too much on the applicants' representations in the ESEE analysis. They failed to consider the many economic, social, environmental and energy benefits from requiring preservation. She disagreed with staff that the cost to repair the windows was an extraordinary economic cost. The $51,537 estimate to repair the window sashes and frames and provide energy saving weather-stripping was not "extraordinary" when one considered the $1.4 million value of the property; the cost of the proposed additions; in the light of the historic significance of the home and its newly confirmed association with prominent regional architect, Roscoe Hemenway; and because it was a rare example of his work—especially this architectural style. Ms. O'Rourke-Meadors explained her written testimony talked about how staff had addressed social, environmental and energy consequences, and how the legislature had addressed the community benefits of preservation and restoration. It included her own ESEE analysis. She discussed economic benefits. She held the impact was to the Country Club/North Shore Neighborhood; the other properties on the LDL; the community of Lake Oswego; and the nation. She related some of the economic benefits were that it could strengthen the local economy to use local craftsmen, rather than an out-of-state manufacturer. The project could provide on-the- job training to learn craftsman skills. It would demonstrate the City's commitment to historical and architectural heritage, thereby strengthening opportunities to qualify for grants and heritage tourism designations and funding. It could demonstrate that weatherization of existing windows was an economic alternative to replacing them. It could demonstrate the best use of dollars to achieve energy savings for historic properties. It would preserve and enhance the property value of the house, neighborhood and overall tax base of the community. • Ms. O'Rourke-Meadors asked the DRC to deny the application as they had failed to demonstrate: The proposed significant alterations did not diminish the historical and architectural significance of this local landmark. • The proposed additions were reasonable. • Repairs were not feasible. • New replacement windows constitute repair and maintenance • New replacement windows appropriately replicate the historic wood windows of the historic Roscoe Hemenway house. The applicants had failed to exercise due diligence. The applicants proceeded to purchase new and replacement windows prior to appropriate review and approval. They had purchased the new windows with the knowledge of the historic designation status of their home. Ms. O'Rourke-Meadors indicated her written testimony included recommended conditions of approval to incorporate in approval if the DRC decided to not deny the application. She asked City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 9 of 12 Minutes of April 18,2011 the DRC to take adequate time to review the evidence that had been added to the record at the hearing. Late Proponent's testimony Mark Holladay, Iron Mountain Blvd. (97034), explained that he had been neutral, but was now a proponent. He had been in the house a couple of times during his life, but he had never met the applicants. He asked the DRC to grant their requests. The changes they asked for would not cause disruption of either the historical or architectural significance of the house. He pointed out two other nearby examples of Tudor design (Christ Church and Oswego Country Club) had each been modified but remained Tudor style. He believed the applicants would also maintain the historical and architectural significance the criteria called for. He believed the applicants had not known about the historical significance of the house when they bought it, but what they proposed actually technically and aesthetically architecturally balanced the house so it was more in keeping with what one would expect a Tudor house to be like: the hips balanced each other on each side of the house. It looked better from the street and from the back. The garage would look better. He saw no reason for controversy about the proposed design. He and his wife had just made improvements to their house, including new windows and a new kitchen. Their house was not on the historic list but they had been concerned about maintaining the integrity of the house by matching the windows. He said the application showed the applicants had done a fine job of attempting to preserve the overall character of the historic design. It met the criteria to maintain the historical and architectural value of the house. He asked the DRC to grant the application. Mr. Boone asked if anyone wanted to respond to Mr. Holladay's testimony. Ms. O'Rourke- Meadors held his representations were not accurate or applicable because he spoke about properties not on the LDL. Mr. Boone recalled that Mr. Holladay had not stated they were on the LDL. Rebuttal Ms. Krawczuk observed a house could be on the historic tour even if it were not on the Landmark Designation List. The tour was privately sponsored - not City sponsored. She advised the timing related to when the applicants found out about the listing or what that meant in terms of an addition versus windows did not matter. But a reasonable person who knew it would be subject to review would not put down $55,000 to just "see what happened." Even if they had not purchased those windows they would likely be asking for the Hurd windows because they were the best fit for the project. The old windows were not operable and they were deteriorated and needed to be fixed. The Hurd windows were the most appropriate and cost effective solution. It was just too bad they were already ordered and delivered. She recalled testimony about the economic benefit of being on the List. She noted a neighbor had testified that the house sat on the market for a couple of years. That was a reality check about what the market really thought about the value and condition of the home and what value there was to being on the List. She recalled the emphasis opponents put on who the architect was. She pointed out the Cultural Resources Inventory Sheet (F-3) said the architect was "unknown." Opponents had factored in an economic benefit of being on the historic home tour. But the tour was not being considered at the hearing —just an addition to a home. If the request were approved that would not necessarily preclude the home from being on the tour in the future. She noted opponents suggested storm windows were a viable alternative. But the chart in the record showed they were not as energy efficient and created problems like condensation. The reflectivity of storm windows obscured the beauty of the gridded design of the windows. There was also a problem of emergency egress. The flimsy metal materials were not aesthetically pleasing. She recalled opponents suggested the brick did not match and the applicants had just pulled one from the house. She advised a condition of approval said that applicants had to City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 10 of 12 Minutes of April 18,2011 match the brick and they accepted that condition - so the brick would match. She recalled that opponents had suggested that Oregon Administrative Rules somehow bootstrapped National Trust regulations. She advised the OARs did not directly apply to the project. The federal guidelines had not been adopted into the local code. Local code that had been adopted allowed some flexibility of design. She recalled opponents had repeatedly said there was only one photograph in the record when the applicants had submitted many photographs. She advised the DRC to weigh evidence and credibility. The applicants had submitted updated and recent photographs and a detailed inventory that described the condition of the windows. But even if the windows were in good condition, the alteration the applicants proposed was in keeping with the historical and architectural significance of the project. She recalled testimony had referred to the wrong amount for windows. The chart showed it would cost $81,000. She asked the DRC to make its decision that evening. During the questioning period, Mr. Chek addressed the question of energy efficiency. He said the applicants had met with representatives from a company the HRAB had recommended and another company. They had looked at the windows and questioned why the applicants would repair them if they could get a fair substitute. He said the applicants had been surprised to hear that the opponents liked the storm windows. They had been installed 15 to 20 years ago. They did not work. The photographs showed one could not see the window grid through them. Storm windows —even after they were repaired —would be around R40 and that would not meet the code-required R35 energy rating. (Chair Creighton advised the required rating was about to go down.) The Hurd sash replacements were less than R30. One of the window vendors had offered an option to insert a wood screen in summer and a wood storm window during winter months. Mr. Chek said maintenance of a wood storm window did not seem like good option and it was very expensive. That was why the applicants chose sash replacement. The frames would remain exactly as they are. Only the sashes would be changed. When asked about how the price of Hurd windows compared with other brands, Mr. Chek said it had been in the mid- range of the brands considered. The applicants had compared a sample Hurd window with a Marvin window and found Hurd was a good value because it was a better looking, better made product and it featured harder, heavier wood. The sash unit was made of Alder and Poplar. It painted out much better on the inside. It fit better than Marvin windows and had a recessed slide mechanism. He said he had used all brands, but his opinion was the Hurd window looked as close to an original window as one could get. Chair Creighton recalled that when he visited the site he had observed the storm windows were made of bronzed aluminum. He asked when they had been installed and if they had been there during the home tour two years ago. Mr. Chek was not sure, but thought they could be 20 years old. He said he had not gone on the tour that year. Mr. Chek confirmed that the applicants had compared the price of true divided lights with simulated divided lights. They found if they used true divided lights with single strength glass they would have to use a storm window. Two window manufacturers told them that they would not build double insulated, true divided light windows because the glass and wood made them so heavy that there would not be enough strength where it was needed. Ms. Krawczuk referred to the cost comparison chart in Exhibit F- 2. Single pane, true divided light, wood windows would cost $121,000. With storm windows the cost would be $155,000. Mr. Chek explained the applicants would pay the extra cost of painting the aluminum clad windows after they were installed in order to address seams and achieve the same satin sheen as the original windows. When asked, Mr. McAuliffe clarified the additions had 16 windows. The existing house had 55 windows (38 of them were not operable). Some existing windows would not be replaced, including an existing latticed glass window. Mr. Needham recalled the contention in testimony that the need to replace all the existing windows was applicants' conjecture. He asked where the pictures were of the 38 inoperable windows. Ms. Krawczuk advised a packet of photographs of windows and an inventory that described the condition of each window had City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 11 of 12 Minutes of April 18,2011 been submitted that day and she understood it had been distributed to the Commissioners. She clarified there was not a picture of every single window. Mr. Needham asked if the applicants had a report from the experts they had sought advice from regarding repairing of existing sashes that detailed the cost of repairing each individual window. Ms. Krawczuk clarified they had not provided a detailed report, but they had provided the quotes in the record. They had been reluctant to spend that much time on quotes because they assumed the windows were beyond repair. Mr. Needham said he saw huge holes in the evidence that had been provided. Mr. McAuliffe reported he had met with a Versatile representative at the site. The representative had looked at each window and made notes, then returned with a quote for the entire project. Another wood window builder had also come out, taken an inventory, and given the applicants a quote. That was because they felt all the windows needed work. The quote did not address each individual window, but was a quote to repair and replace them all. Few of the windows would open and close. Most were painted shut. Some were open, but could not be closed. When Mr. Needham asked Ms. Hastay clarified staff had been to the house, but only viewed the windows from the exterior. They had not determined if they were operable or not. Mr. Needham recalled one of the applicants' major arguments was that the historical and architectural significance could be offset by the cost. They contended that all the windows needed to be repaired, but they had not provided sufficient proof of that. He noted that vendors typically wanted to replace everything. Mr. Chek reported that most of the sash boards were broken and most of the weights were missing. That was why most were not operable. Most of the companies the applicants got bids from went through and would replace every window. There were some leaded windows with broken panes that the applicants were going to repair. But every other window in the house needed attention. Mr. Chek was asked why the applicants proposed 10:12 instead of 12:12 roof pitch on the rear (north) elevation. Mr. Chek explained he could not make it any narrower without making it taller. But he needed to keep it under the ridge and keep the width of the bedroom. Ms. O'Rourke-Meadors requested the record be held open for seven days. Mr. Needham moved to continue LU 11-0004 to May 2, 2011 for written testimony and evidence only. Additional written testimony and evidence was to be submitted by 5:00 p.m. April 25 and the rebuttal was to be submitted by 5:00 p.m. April 27. Mr. Richards seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. GENERAL PLANNING AND OTHER BUSINESS (None) ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Chair Creighton adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Janice Reynolds Administrative Support DRC\minutes\April 18,2011 .doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 12 of 12 Minutes of April 18,2011