Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - 2011-05-02 Gregg Creighton, Chair  Don Richards, Vice Chair  Bob Needham, Commissioner  Frank Rossi, Commissioner  Peter Scott, Commissioner  Brent Ahrend, Commissioner  Jeff Peck, Commissioner AGENDA Development Review Commission Monday, May 2, 2011 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-635-0270 Published on the internet at www.ci.oswego.or.us Contact: Janice Reynolds at jreynolds@ci.oswego.or.us or phone at 503-635-0297 This meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. For any special accommodations, please contact us 48 hours before the meeting. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. MINUTES IV. FINDINGS V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 11-0004, 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 the replacement of windows. The property is located at: 1097 Chandler Road (Tax Lot 5700 of Tax Map 21E 03CD). The staff coordinator is Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner. Note: This hearing has been continued from the April 18, 2011 Development Review Commission meeting for deliberation purposes only (request was made to leave written record open for 7 days following first evidentiary hearing; no additional public testimony scheduled). VI. GENERAL PLANNING AND OTHER BUSINESS VII. ADJOURNMENT STAFF REPORT CITY oF LÀ KE OS E • PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANTS/OWNERS: FILE NO: Dennis and Marcie McAuliffe LU 11-0004 APPLICANTS' REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF: Dana Krawczuk, Ball Janik LLP Johanna Hastay TAX LOT REFERENCE: DATE OF REPORT: Tax Lot 5700 of Tax Map 21E 03CD April 8, 2011 LOCATION: 120-DAY DECISION DATE: 1097 Chandler Road July 20, 2011 COMP. PLAN DESCRIPTION: NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION R-10 Country Club-North Shore ZONING DESIGNATION: R-10 I. APPLICANTS' REQUEST The applicants are requesting 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 the replacement of windows. II. RECOMMENDATION Approval of LU 11-0004, with conditions. The complete list of recommended conditions is provided on pages 21-22 of this report. LU 11-0004 Page 1 of 23 III. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code (Chapter LOC 50): LOC 50.08.005 - 50.08.055 R-10 Residential Zone Description LOC 50.40.005 - 50.40.030 Drainage Standard for Minor Development LOC 50.55.005 - 50.55.020 Parking LOC 50.58.005 - 50.58.035 On-Site Circulation - Driveways and Fire Access Roads LOC 50.64.005 - 50.64.035 Utilities LOC 50.77.007 Burden of Proof LOC 50.79.025 Review Criteria for Minor Developments LOC 50.79.040 Conditions of Approval LOC 50.81.005 - 50.81.020 Review of Minor Development Applications LOC 50.84.005 Appeal of Minor Development Decision B. City of Lake Oswego Tree Chapter [LOC Chapter 55]: LOC 55.08.020 Tree Protection Plan Required LOC 55.08.030 Tree Protection Measures Required C. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Chapter [LOC Chapter 571: LOC 57.06.065 Maximum Shade Point Height D. City of Lake Oswego Historic Preservation [LOC Chapter 581: LOC 58.02.005 - 58.02.165 Historic Preservation IV. FINDINGS A. Background/Existing Conditions: 1. The City Manager has authority to make the initial decision on a major alteration of a minor development, which is the nature of this application [LOC 58.02.025(1)(c)]. An appeal of the City Manager's decision would go to either the Development Review Commission (DRC) or the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB), as the City Manager would determine per LOC 58.02.160(1). The City Manager is referring the initial hearing and decision to the DRC, rather than making a staff decision and then referring any appeal to the DRC because: • Members of HRAB wish to provide evidence on the matter (which would compromise the Board's ability to hear any appeal from a staff decision); and • Assignment of the initial hearing and decision to the DRC, although not expressly authorized by LOC Chapter 58, avoids any concern that staff's decision would be influenced by evidence offered by HRAB members. LU 11-0004 Page 2 of 23 ® The parties are afforded due process by having the application considered by the DRC as an initial hearing and decision, rather than after appeal from a staff decision. 2. The project site is a 27,335-square foot lot located at the corner of Chandler Road (a major collector) and Iron Mountain Boulevard (a neighborhood collector) (Exhibit El). 3. The site is zoned R-10. The properties surrounding the site are also zoned R-10 and are developed with single-family dwellings. 4. The existing dwelling on the site (C.B. Van Houten House) is on the City's Historic Landmark List. The 1939 dwelling is significant as one of the best examples of the Tudor Revival style of architecture in the neighborhood (Exhibit F3). Additions to the dwelling were constructed prior to the historic resources designation but generally fit with the historic character and style of the original design (Exhibit F3). 5. The site is generally flat (Exhibit E3). There are a number of trees on the site but none are proposed for removal as a part of this application. V. PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND APPLICANTS' BURDEN OF PROOF Applications for major alterations of Historic Landmarks are processed in accordance with LOC Articles 50.77, 50.81, 50.82, and LOC 58.02.080(3) and 58.02.090(5). A. Neighborhood Meeting: No neighborhood meeting was required by LOC 50.77.025. B. Public Notice to Surrounding Area of Minor Development: The City has provided adequate public notice and opportunity to comment on this application, as required by LOC 50.82.020. One letter in opposition of the window replacement portion of the proposed development was received from members of the Historic Resources Advisory Board (Exhibit G200). C. Burden of Proof: Per LOC 50.77.007, the applicants for a development permit shall bear the burden of proof that the application complies with all applicable review criteria or can be made to comply with applicable criteria by imposition of conditions of approval. The applicants have provided sufficient evidence to enable staff to evaluate the proposal. These documents are listed as exhibits at the end this report. LU 11-0004 Page 3 of 23 VI. LOC 50.79.020- MINOR DEVELOPMENT A. Classification of Application LOC 50.79.020(2)(b) designates the exterior modification of a single-family dwelling that impacts an historical resource as a minor development. The minor development procedures found in LOC Article 50.81 are followed when reviewing "major alterations" under the Historic Preservation Code [LOC 58.02.090(5)]. B. Criteria for Review of Application Per LOC 50.79.025, for any minor development application to be approved, it shall first be established that the proposal complies with: 1. The requirements of the zone in which it is located; R-10 Zone [LOC 50.08.005 - 50.08.0551 The applicants propose to construct several additions to the single-family dwelling on the site (Exhibit F1). Single-family use is permitted outright in the R-10 zone. The matrix, below, illustrates the current R-10 zone requirements for setbacks, height, floor area and lot coverage relative to the proposed additions. R-10 Zone Standards and Analysis of Compliance [LOC 50.08.005- 50.08-055] Required Proposed Additions Front Yard (south) 25 feet 60 feet Side Yard (east) 15 feet 15.8 feet (east) Street Side Yard (west) 20 feet 33 feet Rear Yard (north) 30 feet 63 feet Max. Base Height 30 feet 27.2 feet Lot Coverage 6,834 sq. ft. or 25%1 -3,7002 sq. ft. or 13.5% Floor Area 7,842 sq. ft. or 28.7% 5,519 sq. ft. or 20.2% As illustrated on Exhibits E2 and E6-E8 and outlined in the table above, the proposed additions comply with all of the site development limitations of the zone. Lot coverage is calculated based on the height of the structure. There is a discrepancy between the applicants'site plan,which refers to an existing height between 24 and 25 feet,and the applicants' narrative,which correctly states that the height is approximately 27.2 feet. 2 The applicants'site plan mistakenly subtracts the area of the garage from the lot coverage calculation. The garage, while loading from the street side yard, is considered a front-loading garage not a side-loading garage eligible for the exception per LOC 50.08.055(1). LU 11-0004 Page 4 of 23 In addition to the standards outlined in the matrix, the proposed additions must also comply with the structure design standards listed, below. Street Front and Street Side Setback Planes [LOC 50.08.045(1)1 The front profile of a structure that fronts on a street is required to fit behind a plane that starts at the front yard setback line and extends upward to 20 feet in height and slopes toward the center of the lot at a slope of 6:12, up to the maximum allowed height. The side profile of a structure that fronts on a street is required to fit behind a plane that starts at the street side yard setback line and extends upward to 20 feet in height and slopes toward the center of the lot at a slope of 12:12, up to the maximum allowed height. As illustrated on Exhibits E2 and E6, the proposed additions are well behind the front and street side setback planes. This standard is met. Internal Side Yard Setback Plane [LOC 50.08.045(2)1 The side profile of a structure is required to fit behind a plane that starts at the side property lines and extends upward to 12 feet in height and slopes toward the center of the lot at a 12:12 slope, up to the maximum allowed height. As illustrated on Exhibits E2 and E6, the additions are behind the side yard setback plane. This standard is met. Side Yard Appearance and Screening [LOC 50.08.045(3)1 The side yard or side elevations of the proposed development must comply with at least one of three design treatments listed in this section. The proposed development complies with Treatment 1- Maximum Side Yard Plane [LOC 50.07.040(5)(a)], which requires that the side elevations of a structure be divided into distinct planes of 750 square feet or less. The largest side yard plane of on the west elevation is approximately 156 square feet and on the east elevation is approximately 212 square feet (Exhibit E6). This standard is met. Garage Appearance and Location [LOC 50.08.0551 The garage shall not be located closer to the street than the dwelling, unless the exception criteria are met. For the purpose of this standard, the exterior wall of at least one room of habitable space, including space above the garage, shall be considered an acceptable method of meeting this standard for remodeling projects for dwelling built prior to August 2004. LU 11-0004 Page 5 of 23 The existing dwelling was built in 1939. There is existing habitable space above the garage, in compliance with the above standards (Exhibit E7). This standard is met. Conclusion Staff finds that the proposed development complies with all of the site development limitations and design standards required by the R-10 zone. 2. The Development Standards applicable to minor developments; Drainage for Minor Development (LOC 50.40.005 - 50.40.0301 This standard requires that drainage alterations, including new development, not adversely affect neighboring properties. As discussed in the applicants' narrative (Exhibit F1), the new roof drains for the proposed additions will be connected to the existing drainage system (Exhibit E2). This standard is met. Parking (LOD 50.55.005 - 50.55.0251 This standard requires that a single-family dwelling provide one off-street parking space, which may be satisfied by a garage space. The existing three-car garage provides the required off-street parking (Exhibit E2). This standard is met. On-Site Circulation-Driveways and Fire Access Road (LOC 50.58.005—50.58.0351 This standard regulates driveways, including slopes and other aspects of geometric design, particularly those related to emergency vehicle access. It also requires that driveways serving single-family dwellings not exceed 20 percent grade or five percent cross slope. The existing garage is accessed by a driveway that meets the maximum slope and cross slope requirements (Exhibit F1). According to the Fire Marshal, emergency vehicle access to the site is adequate (Exhibit F4). This standard is met. Utilities [LOC 50.64.005 - 50.64.0351 This standard requires that development be connected to utilities and that utilities are installed underground, unless exempted by the City Manager. The existing dwelling is served by existing utilities. The applicants' narrative states that all new and existing utility lines will be routed underground (Exhibit F1). This standard is met. LU 11-0004 Page 6 of 23 3. Any additional statutory or Lake Oswego Code provisions that may be applicable to the specific minor development application; City of Lake Oswego Tree Chapter ILOC Chapter 551 This ordinance requires approval of a permit for removal of any tree five inches in diameter or greater and prescribes protection measures for trees to remain during construction. Only those trees which must be removed in order to site proposed improvements will be granted tree cutting permits [LOC 55.080(2)]. The applicants are not requesting the removal of any trees as a part of this application (Exhibit F1). Tree Protection Tree protection fencing is required when a tree protection zone or drip line of a tree that is five inches in diameter or greater is within the construction zone, whether on or off-site. As authorized by LOC 55.08.020, a tree protection application and plan should be submitted for staff review and approval prior to conducting any development activities on the site, including, but not limited to clearing, grading, landscaping, or excavation. Tree protection fencing shall be placed at the tree protection zone, which is the zone required to protect the critical root area necessary for the continued health of the tree. The applicants shall propose the tree protection zone for each tree, for review and approval by staff, on site. As required by LOC 55.08.030(7), no construction, excavation, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless directed by the project arborist present on site and approved by the City. The applicants will be required to submit a contract with a consulting arborist for services as described above and for any construction activities within a tree protection zone. All tree protection plans submitted shall clearly illustrate all areas impacted by construction activities on the site (including landscaping), the location of temporary fencing around the tree protection zone of all trees five inches in diameter or greater where the construction zone is within the drip line of a tree, or other tree protection measures as recommended by a certified arborist. In addition, a note should be placed on the fencing and on the construction documents that informs the site contractors about the necessity of preventing damage to the trees, including bark and root zone, and that no materials should be stored nor compaction occur within the root zones of the adjacent trees [LOC 55.08.030]. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Chapter FLOC Chapter 571 All single-family structures in any zone are required to meet the Maximum Shade Point Height Standard [LOC 57.06.065], which protects structures located to the north of the site from shading. An exemption to this standard shall be permitted if the applicant can demonstrate that one or more of the conditions listed in LOC LU 11-0004 Page 7 of 23 57.06.070 exist based on plot plans, topographical data, shadow patterns, photographs, or other substantial evidence. Staff calculated the maximum shade point height and found that the proposed additions comply with the basic requirement because the proposed height is less than the maximum allowed shade point height (Exhibit E3). This standard is met. City of Lake Oswego Historic Chapter [LOC Chapter 581 The applicants propose to construct additions and to replace the majority of the windows with more energy efficient window sashes on the existing dwelling, which is an historic landmark (the C.B. Van Houten House) (Exhibits E2-E11, E13 and F1), The proposed additions are considered a "major alteration" as defined by LOC 58.02.015. The window sash replacement proposal is also considered a "major alteration" as, while matching the original appearance, the proposed window sash materials (aluminum clad wood) are not consistent with the original historic window sash material (wood) per LOC 58.02.135(1)(f). Staff will address the additions and window replacement proposals separately for each of the following criteria and considerations. According to LOC 58.02.135(3), in order for a major alteration of a landmark to be approved, the City Manager must find that the following criteria are met: • The proposed alteration will not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the landmark; or, • For alterations which diminish the historical or architectural significance, through an ESEE analysis, it can be shown that the benefit to the community of allowing the alteration outweighs the benefit to the community of preserving the resource in its present condition (emphasis added). Existing front(south)elevation with typical Tudor Revival architectural ornamentation and elements. LU 11-0004 Page 8 of 23 The C.B. Van Houten house is a 1 & 1/2-story wood frame house built in 1939 (see picture, previous page). The house has the characteristic complex massing and architectural details of the Tudor Revival style. Ornamentation of particular note on the dwelling includes steep-pitched overlapping gable roof forms, brick siding, horizontal lap siding with accents, stucco and wood framing accents on the polygonal bay, diamond-shaped leaded glass windows, long narrow multi-paned windows with double hung sashes, multiple dormer projections, and massive chimneys (Exhibit F3). Front(south)elevation with proposed first and second floor additions. The applicants propose to construct additions at the sides and rear of the existing dwelling and to replace the majority of the existing single paned, true divided light, double hung, wood sash windows (Exhibits E2-E11 and F1). The following considerations are to be used as a guide in determining whether the proposed development complies with LOC 58.02.135(3): a. The use of the resource, the reasonableness of the proposed alteration, and the relationship of these factors to the public interest in the preservation of the resource, or alterations which diminish the historical or architectural significance may be allowed if, through an ESEE analysis, it can be shown that the benefit to the community of allowing the alteration outweighs the benefit to the community of preserving the resource in its present condition; Proposed Additions: The historic resource is a detached single family dwelling occupied by a family. The additions proposed by the applicants are a reasonable alteration because they allow for an improved floor plan that increases the functionality of the dwelling for existing and future owners without diminishing the historical or architectural significance of the resource. The proposed additions have a minimal visual impact on the highly visible front (south) and street side (west) elevations. The applicants took great care LU 11-0004 Page 9 of 23 to ensure that the proposed additions complement and match the asymmetrical complex massing, siding and accent materials, paint and brick colors, and the numerous architectural details of the historic dwelling (Exhibits E3, E6-E10, E13, and F1). The letter in objection submitted by members of HRAB states that the Tudor ornamentation incorporated into the additions by the applicants is acceptable with some concerns regarding the new brick siding (Exhibit G200). The applicants have provided examples of the proposed brick that matches the existing brick siding (Exhibit E13). Existing side(west)elevation with earlier addition and metal windows. Proposed side(west)elevation Proposed Window Replacements: The applicants are proposing to replace the majority of the existing windows with aluminum clad, simulated divided light, and double hung Hurd' windows. The letter in objection submitted by members of HRAB states that the proposed windows are not made of the original material (wood) or incorporate the "wavy" glass typically found in historic windows and suggests repairing the original windows on at least the two street elevations (Exhibit G200). The applicants' narrative states that the existing windows are inoperable, having deteriorated in functionality and quality over the years (Exhibit F1). Staff finds that replacement of inoperable windows on a residential structure is a reasonable alteration. While the proposed Hurd windows are very consistent with the appearance of the original windows in almost every aspect (window size and location on building walls, window trim, pane size, and muntin detailing), the applicants' narrative also includes an Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) analysis that addresses the benefits of allowing the simulated divided light, aluminum clad windows rather than requiring new true divided light wood sashes or the repair of the original wood sashes as requested by members of HRAB (Exhibits E10-E12, F1, and F3): 1. Economic The applicants allege that they did not know that the dwelling was designated a historic landmark and purchased the Hurd windows for $55,614 prior to approval of a Major Alteration land use application or issuance of a building permit (Exhibit F1). LU 11-0004 Page 10 of 23 The applicants provided a cost estimate from Classic Windows for 55 new simulated divided light wood sashes (Exhibit F2). The total estimate was $98,080 or $42,466 more than the cost of the construction and installation of the Hurd windows. The cost comparison clearly demonstrates the economic benefit of the applicants' savings on this choice for the window replacement portion of the remodel. If the applicants had proposed using wood sashes, the window replacement would be considered "maintenance or repair per LOC 58.02.135(f) and would not be subject to a "Major Alteration" application. As noted in the applicants' cost estimates, these windows would cost a total of$98,080 dollars (Exhibit F3). As the applicants are proposing using aluminum clad windows (for the cost of$55,614), the proposal is considered a Major Alteration. LOC 58.02.010(14) states that one of the purposes of Chapter 58 is to protect private property owners against extraordinary costs occasioned by the application of this Chapter. In lieu of any economic incentives associated with owning a historic landmark, the applicants are requesting that the City consider the "extraordinary cost" associated with the application of this standard. There is an economic benefit to the applicants and to the community to not require additional "extraordinary costs" associated with implementation of this Chapter and to complete what is essentially maintenance of a historic landmark (replacement of inoperable windows). The letter submitted by members of HRAB states that they advocate repairing and restoring the original windows (not replacement) to preserve the "wavy" glass on the two street frontage elevations (Exhibit G200). The applicants obtained two cost estimates for repairing the existing windows (Exhibit F2). To repair the existing 39 windows, replace sashes, and also construct and install the windows for the additions,the cost estimates range from $81,295 to $121,000. The portion of the estimates to repair the original windows ranges from $51,357 to $65,000 of the total costs. As the repaired windows would be single-paned, the estimates also include the construction and installation of wooden storm windows for an additional $13,065 (original windows only) to $34,375 (for new and original windows). This cost may be slightly reduced if only windows on the two street elevations are repaired and the Hurd windows installed on the other elevations. In either scenario, the cost estimates represent an "extraordinary cost" above and beyond the cost of the Hurd windows to maintain a historic structure with the original single-paned, true divided light windows. The applicants' narrative states that any "extraordinary costs" associated with a historic landmark designation may discourage other home owners from maintaining the structures (Exhibit F1). The applicants state that if the Major Alteration is approved as proposed and without additional "extraordinary costs", the City's other historic landmark property owners may also be incentivized to maintain their homes. There is an economic benefit to the community to maintain housing stock in good condition and repair, especially housing stock designated as an important part of the City's history. LU 11-0004 Page 11 of 23 2. Social The City adopted the Historic Preservation code (LOC Chapter 58) in part as a social benefit to the community. Preservation of the City's historic landmarks and districts helps provide distinctive character to the various neighborhoods. The purpose of LOC Chapter 58 is clearly stated in LOC 58.02.010 and includes promoting the "...preservation... and Original and proposed Hurd window comparison. restoration... of those structures... of historic interest within the City [(LOC 58.02.010(1)]" and to "...encourage complementary design and construction impacting historic resources [(LOC 58.02.010(7)]" (emphasis added). The applicants propose to complete a much delayed update of the C.B. Van Houten house which includes renovating earlier additions completed prior to the historic designation. These older additions include windows that do not match the original windows (see graphic on previous pages for side elevations). Replacement of these windows will increase the cohesive historic architectural Tudor Revival style of the structure. In addition, the proposed Hurd windows are replicas of the original windows with regards to trim, pane pattern and proportion, and muntin profile and size, thereby complementing the historic architectural character of the structure (see photo inset above and Exhibits E10-E11). There is a social benefit to be gained by the community from restoring the C.B. Van Houten house (including replacing inoperable and deteriorating windows) and removing the non-complementary windows for ones that better complement the original multi-paned windows. 3. Environmental and Energy The applicants' narrative argues that the Hurd windows, specifically tailored to match the window size and muntin patterns of the C.B. Van Houton house, have already been purchased and constructed (Exhibit F1). They allege that it may prove difficult to repurpose the windows for a different project and ask that the City consider the fact that the materials and energy have already been spent on the construction. A condition requiring the construction of new wood sash windows (and storm windows) or repair of original windows on either two or all elevations would require the duplicate use of materials and energy. While staff understands LU 11-0004 Page 12 of 23 that the applicants seek to avoid further costs associated with this project, staff cannot find that this criterion is met simply because the applicants have already purchased the Hurd windows. That argument would essentially waive compliance with the underlying standards. The Environmental and Energy analysis should be of the windows themselves, not of the problematic circumstances that led to their purchase prior to the approval of the Major Alteration. As noted, below, the existing windows are in deteriorated condition. Regardless of the type of window approved, materials and energy must be spent to either repair the existing windows or replace them as it is unviable to leave the windows in their present condition. Staff finds that there are environmental and energy "costs" to the community associated with either scenario. The applicants have provided an energy efficiency comparison between the Hurd windows and the windows from four companies previously discussed (Exhibit F2): Comparison of Energy Efficiency Window Company Repair Originals or Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency with Storm New Windows Rating Windows Hurd New U27-U30 Not necessary Wooddale Repair U50-U60 U40 Versatile Sash Repair U50-U60 U40 Classic Sash New Unknown Not necessary The Hurd windows are more energy efficient than the repaired original single-paned true divided light, wood sash windows, even with storm windows taken into consideration. There are environmental and energy benefits (or equal costs) to allowing the applicants to use the proposed Hurd windows. Per LOC 58.02.135(3)(b), staff finds that while the proposed aluminum clad simulated divided light windows may minimally diminished the historical or architectural significance of the C.B. Van Houten house, the ESEE analysis shows that the proposed alteration (window replacement) outweighs the community benefit of preserving the resource in its present condition. b. The significance of the resource and the community benefit to preserving it; Proposed Additions: As stated in the Cultural Resources Inventory for the dwelling, the C.B. Van Houten House is significant as one of the best examples of the Tudor Revival style (Exhibit F3). The applicants wish to preserve the dwelling. The architectural details of the proposed additions match the existing dwelling and do not diminish the significance of the resource. LU 11-0004 Page 13 of 23 Proposed Window Replacement: The letter submitted by members of HRAB notes that the new glass is not historically accurate as it is not "wavy" (Exhibit G200). The letter quotes guidelines for the Historic Tax Incentives Program from the National Parks Service that addresses window replacement in historic structures that do not appear to allow for simulated 3 divided light windows or aluminum clad windows. While the National Park Service guidelines are separate from the City's criteria, staff reviewed the referenced guidelines and found that simulated divided lights windows are allowed if there is a fixed exterior grid, between-the-glass spacers, a fixed interior grid, and the dimensions are equivalent to the historic muntin (Exhibit F5). The applicants propose to use fixed exterior and interior grids as well as a spacer between the two panes of glass, all to simulate a window equivalent to the original windows (Exhibits F1 and E11). The guidelines also express caution in using aluminum clad windows as a substitute for wood as the difference in details may be obvious (Exhibit F5). Again, the applicants are proposing windows that are very sensitive to the original windows with regards to finish, profile, dimensions, and details (Exhibits E10-E11). Finally, with regards to glass characteristics, the National Parks Service allows insulated glass as long as it does not significantly increase the reflectivity of the glass (Exhibit F5). From the applicants' materials, it does not appear that the Hurd windows are significantly more reflective than the original windows (Exhibit E10). The replacement of the original inoperable and deteriorated windows with the Hurd windows would not significantly diminish the historic value of the house. c. The physical condition of the resource; The C.B. Van Houten House is in generally good condition but there is some deferred maintenance (windows). As noted in the applicants' narrative, the proposed windows will enhance the physical condition of the resource (Exhibit F1 and E10). Original and deteriorated windows http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/tax/download/windows replacement,pdf LU 11-0004 Page 14 of 23 d. The effect of requested changes related to the original exterior design, arrangement, proportion, detail, scale, texture, and/or materials; including the following: (1) Retention of Original Construction: Distinguishing original qualities defining a structure's character shall not be destroyed. Removal or alteration of historic materials or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. Proposed Additions: The Cultural Resources Inventory lists the distinguishing original qualities of the dwelling as its asymmetrical massing, multiple hip and gable roof forms with jerkinhead and wood shingles, masonry walls, multi-light double-hung sash and casement windows, horizontal lap siding, full-height polygonal bay, half-timbered spandrel, arched window with lattice glass, and other architectural elements (Exhibit F3). The proposal does not remove or alter any of these distinctive architectural features. In addition, the proposed additions will all match the existing dwelling with regards to siding, ornamentation, window shape and design, trim, railing paneling, and roof forms and pitches (Exhibits E6-E13 and F1). Proposed Window Replacement: The proposed windows replicate the original windows with regards to shape, size, muntin pattern, simulated divided lights, wall placement, and trim (Exhibits E10-E11). (2) Time Period Consistency:Structures shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis or which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be avoided. With regards to both the proposed additions and to the replacement windows, the proposed alteration has no impact on time period consistency because it matches the materials and ornamentation of the historic structure and does not seek to create a historically inaccurate appearance. The alteration will actually modify the earlier additions to make them more historically accurate to the Tudor Revival style (Exhibit F1). (3) Visual Integrity/Style: Distinctive stylistic features, such as a line of columns, piers, spandrels, or other primary structural elements, or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a structure, shall be maintained or restored as far as is practicable. Proposed Additions: The proposed additions do not impact the distinctive stylistic features of the dwelling (Exhibits E6 and E13). The additions will match the materials, color, and ornamentation of the existing dwelling and incorporate the rich detailing from the existing house. LU 11-0004 Page 15 of 23 Rear(north)elevation demonstrating proposed additions with stucco and wood framed siding, lap siding accents,simulated divided light windows,and a panel balcony railing. Proposed Window Replacements: As discussed in detail, above, the proposed windows mimic the distinctive stylistic features of the original windows to the extent possible. (4) Replacement or Addition Materials: Whenever possible, deteriorated architectural features shall be restored rather than replaced. In the event that replacement of an existing feature is necessary, or an addition is proposed, new materials should match those of the original structure, to the extent possible, in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Proposed Additions: As discussed in the applicants' narrative (Exhibit F1), the proposed additions will include all the ornamental details that characterize the original house. The materials used for the proposed additions will match the composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities of the historic dwelling (Exhibits E6 and E13). Staff recommends a condition of approval to match the color, texture and appearance of the brick on all new portions of the dwelling to the existing brick. LU 11-0004 Page 16 of 23 Perspective digital photograph from the corner of Iron Mountain Blvd and Chandler Road showing 1st and 2rd floor additions with roof details. There is a discrepancy between the south and the west building elevations with the new gable roof form over the kitchen (Exhibits E6 and E9). On the west elevation, the gable contains a typical Tudor Revival peak detail (similar to the peak details on other existing roof forms) not shown on the south elevation. As a condition of approval, the west elevation should contain the gable peak detail similar to the perspective photo, below (Exhibit E9). Proposed Window Replacements: The applicants' narrative states several times that the standards outlined in LOC 58.02.135(5) are considerations to be used as a guide in deliberations, not requirements (Exhibit F1). Staff agrees that the language of this subsection states that it is a consideration, not a criterion. Staff also notes that this consideration states that "whenever possible...features shall be restored...(or)... new materials should match...to the extent possible...". The purpose of this language is to allow some flexibility for the property owners to replace the deteriorated windows with the new windows as long as the replacements are historically accurate with regards to composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. As discussed and shown in the attached exhibits, the proposed windows are almost an exact replica of the original windows except they are aluminum clad and simulated divided light (Exhibits E6, E9-E11, and F1). The visual impact of the new windows has been minimized by the attention that the applicants have paid to the overall window design and location. LU 11-0004 Page 17 of 23 (5) Building Height: Existing building heights should be maintained. Alteration of roof pitches shall be avoided. Raising or lowering a structure's permanent elevation when constructing a foundation shall be avoided, except as required by Building Code or flood plain requirements. The proposed additions are either at or lower than the height of the existing dwelling. The new gable roof forms will match the various steep pitches of the existing roof forms and will have similar shallow eaves (Exhibit E6). The site is not located in the flood plain and no modifications to the existing foundation are proposed as a part of this application. (6) Horizontal Additions: The scale and proportion of building additions, including the relationship of windows to walls, shall be visually compatible with the traditional architectural character of the historic building. Contemporary construction for alterations and additions are acceptable if the design respects the building's original design and is compatible with the original scale, materials, window and door opening proportions of, the structure. Proposed Additions: On the front (south) elevation, the applicants propose several additions on the left side of the dwelling, including a new mudroom, kitchen extension, and second floor addition (Exhibits E6-E7 and F1). The pitches of the new roof forms complement the existing roof pitches in that they are steep and hipped when possible. The new and replacement windows are simulated divided light windows with a muntin pattern replicating the original windows. The first floor windows are located directly below the eave in line with the typical Tudor Revival window locations. The second floor siding treatment is horizontal lap siding, identical to the existing siding. Staff has already recommended a condition of approval to match the color and texture of the new brick siding to the existing brick siding. On the west (side) elevation, the first and second floor additions discussed, above, are also visible. Again, the applicants have incorporated traditional Tudor Revival details in the proposed additions with roof forms, window treatments and location, and complementary siding (Exhibits E6-E7 and F1). On the north (rear) elevation, the applicants propose an asymmetrical gabled second floor addition that cantilevers over the existing first floor (Exhibit E6). The cantilever is supported by a thick beam and post system with accent bracing. A portion of the second floor addition is a balcony with a paneled wood railing similar to the balcony railing on the front elevation. The two of the existing gables will undergo a siding modification to pick up the angled siding accent similar to the accent on the gable face of the front polygonal bay. The proposed rear gable will be sided in stucco and timber framing in a pattern also similar to the front polygonal bay. The new windows are all simulated divided light windows and are located in a pattern that complements the fenestration on the existing facades. All new areas of brick are already conditioned to match the existing brick in color and texture. LU 11-0004 Page 18 of 23 On the east elevation, the only addition is a second floor addition with a gable roof (Exhibit E6). The applicants reoriented this gable towards the east at the suggestion of staff and members of HRAB to minimize the number of gables on the rear elevation. The proposed simulated divided light, double-hung window in this gable matches the existing window on the first floor. Staff finds that the proposed additions are appropriate with regard to scale and proportion to the existing dwelling. Proposed Window Replacements: As discussed above, the proposed windows replicate the design, pane pattern, and profile of the original windows to maintain the Tudor Revival architectural style. (7) Windows: Window replacements shall match the original windows in materials and appearance. The original number of window panes shall be maintained or restored when replacements are required. This consideration states that materials and appearance of replacement windows should match the original windows. The letter from members of HRAB interprets this to mean that all windows on at least the two street elevations should be constructed of wood sashes and contain "wavy" or older glass (Exhibit G200). This consideration conflicts with other guidelines that provide flexibility in window composition as long as the visual impact is minimized by matching design details. As found earlier, all efforts have been made to duplicate the original windows, including the appearance and exact number of window panes. The applicants have also provided an ESEE analysis that demonstrates why alteration of the existing deteriorated windows has a community benefit (Exhibit F1). (8) Restoration Possible: Except where Building Code precludes it, new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the original structure could be restored. The original house was already subjected to earlier additions so the original form has been altered. The proposed additions and alterations reflect the historic Tudor Revival style. The proposed windows do not require the enlargement or reduction of any structural openings. All windows could all be removed in the future without impacting the essential form or integrity of the original structure. (9) Signs, Lighting:Signs, lighting, and other appurtenances, such as walls, fences, awnings, and landscaping shall be visually compatible with the scale and traditional architectural character of the historic building. LU 11-0004 Page 19 of 23 A new low rock landscaping wall is proposed along the rear of the house. The applicants propose to use rock from the site to construct the wall (Exhibit E6). As a condition of approval, the landscaping wall should tie into the traditional architectural character of the historic building by using on-site basalt boulders where possible, to the satisfaction of staff. e. Pertinent aesthetic factors as identified in Appendix A or the Historic District List of Contributing Resources for the subject property. There are no aesthetic factors identified in Appendix A or the Historic District List of Contributing Resources for the subject property. f. Any design guidelines adopted by the Board. No design guidelines have been adopted by HRAB that affects the subject property. As discussed in the applicants' narrative (Exhibit F1) and as illustrated on the Exhibits E6-E9 and E13, the siding, trim, and architectural details of the proposed additions will match the existing dwelling, including the complex asymmetrical massing, distinctive aged brick, stucco and wood framing accents, horizontal lap siding accents, window size and placement, gable pitches, and hipped roof forms. The proposed additions will not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the landmark. Staff also finds that the proposed window sashes replicate the original windows in appearance with the number and shape of the proposed window panes (Exhibits E6 and E10-E11); the architectural significance is not diminished. The minimal negative impacts the proposed aluminum clad, simulated divided light windows will have on the historical significance of the landmark have been shown through an ESEE analysis to be outweighed by the community benefit of maintaining an excellent example of the Tudor Revival architectural style. Staff finds that the proposed additions and alterations will not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the historic landmark and may be approved. 4. Any applicable condition of approval imposed pursuant to an approved ODPS or prior development permit affecting the subject property. No prior development permits were found. VII. CONCLUSION Based upon the information provided by the applicants and the findings presented in this report, staff concludes that LU 11-0004 complies with all of the applicable criteria and standards or can be made to comply through the imposition of conditions. LU 11-0004 Page 20 of 23 VIII. RECOMMENDATION Approval of LU 11-0004, subject to the following conditions: A. Approval of LU 11-0004 shall be valid for a 3-year period from the date of this decision, and shall be void if construction has not been completed within that time period. B. Prior to Issuance of any Building Permits, the Applicants/Owners Shall: 1. Submit final site and building plans for review and approval of staff that are the same or substantially similar to the site plan, floor plans, building elevations, and materials illustrated on Exhibits E2-E13 to the satisfaction of staff, except with the following modifications: a. The proposed brick shall match the existing brick in color, texture, and appearance. b. The new second floor gable dormer on the west elevation shall contain the peak detail shown on Exhibit E9. c. The low rock landscaping wall (Exhibit E6) shall tie into the historic architectural character of the building by using on-site basalt stones, to the extent possible. 2. Submit a tree protection permit application as required by LOC 55.08.020 and 55.08.030 for review and approval by staff, including off-site trees that are within the construction zone. This plan shall be attached to the construction documents or printed on the construction site plans, and shall include: a. The location of temporary tree protection fencing, consisting of a minimum 6-foot high cyclone fence secured by steel posts, around the tree protection zone, or as recommended by the project arborist and approved by the City. b. A note stating that no fill or compaction shall occur within the critical root zones of any of the trees, or that if fill or compaction is unavoidable, measures will be taken as recommended by a certified arborist to reduce or mitigate the impact of the fill or compaction. Such measures should be clearly outlined in the tree protection plan. c. A note that clearly informs all site contractors about the necessity of preventing damage to the trees, including bark and root zone. The applicant and contractor(s) shall be subject to fines, penalties and mitigation for trees that are damaged or destroyed during construction. LU 11-0004 Page 21 of 23 d. A sign shall be attached to the tree protection fencing, which states that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the City Manager and project arborist. C. Prior to any Construction Activity on the Site,the Applicants/Owners Shall: 1. Install all tree protection measures as required by the Condition B(2), above. The tree protection fencing shall be inspected and approved by City staff prior to commencing any construction activities. D. Prior to the Final Building Inspection or Occupancy of any Dwelling, the Applicants/Owners shall: 1. Request a final inspection by the Planning staff to assure that the dwelling complies with the approved final plans, per Conditions B(1), above. Note: 1. Development plans review, permit approval, and inspections by the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Section are limited to compliance with the Lake Oswego Community Development Code, and other applicable codes and regulations. The applicant is advised to review plans for compliance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations that could relate to the development, e.g., Americans with Disabilities Act, Endangered Species Act. City staff may advise the applicant of issues regarding state and federal laws that the City staff member believes would be helpful to the applicant, but any such advice or comment is not a determination or interpretation of federal or state law or regulation. EXHIBITS: A. Notice of Appeal: (No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use) B. Findings, Conclusions and Order: (No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use) C. Minutes: (No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use) D. Staff Report: E. GRAPHICS/PLANS: El Tax Map E2 Site and Utility Plan E3 Maximum Shade Point Height Compliance Plan E4 Existing Elevation Drawings (2 pages) E5 Existing Floor Plans (3 pages) LU 11-0004 Page 22 of 23 E6 Proposed Elevation Plans (2 pages) E7 Proposed Floor and Roof Plans (7 pages) E8 Building Sections E9 Digital Photo Elevation Comparisons and Perspectives (6 pages) E10 Original and Hurd Window Comparisons (5 pages) E11 Hurd Window Specifications (14 pages) E12 Hurd Windows on Other Historic Structures E13 Color and Materials Board (on file) F. WRITTEN MATERIALS: F1 Applicants' Narrative F2 Applicants' Window Cost Estimates F3 Cultural Resources inventory Form for the C.B. Van Houten House F4 Fire Marshal Memorandum F5 National Park Services Historic Preservation Guidelines for Windows G. LETTERS Neither for nor Against: (G1-99) None Support: (G100-199) None Opposition: (G-200+) G200 e-mail from members of Historic Resources Advisory Board, dated March 17, 2011 Date of Application Submittal: March 7, 2011 Date Application Determined to be Complete: March 22, 2011 State Mandated 120-Day Rule: July 20, 2011 LU 11-0004 Page 23 of 23 re GA �___ SEE MAP 2 IC 3CC f aON MOUNTAIN BLVD. etT N .n.... OA3oN ...r.'P �' ..rauA ` Sir MnY -O - NO\ Y. -o pa uA _� `\ �,`9f ,p Irrl ••� \J\mR m0� l/ �lf� '" J ��, 100 �3_, \-�.� _, ` D r y "gyp 11 '. O" N N E ru v� o° a li 16r.L ,.,5 nyN •. ., _ ' O3 r.i '<. w /'�/� 3-0 Ib ° xm 1 mm 0) ;I a • '', °'`fib"''m 1 1- nOw m n.''- II a0 ••s 'C7 ^�r N ° g a 'Xl rn NO tf 0 . 0,, , -,----' . _ NI 0+ NSb`O" C. ' ( NO°O �_82� Y _ 1 ', m t�,, a n 4r° n AW -.v • 'mu �92 e,� r(, d� .B n„ co �Au �► ii � tiUI "WN o`1a ` o neST.k m� 8 A ^ y N y ,I° DI V - rl; i o r o < hU" ' ( o4No 1 rrm4 '' 200 0W- ° 'o 7 , o o • • � -, — %o $'''',,.: J I • C fV� vo t � s/ � / � � � r4. . +1 m = i4 , IN � �i ' vo e" ^ n ' Mw gr. _I som IPn r W -oW �� ,°9th _A . . I =w 8 8 U -( ?1 • • _o y r�r`••.r.. . b � ' ""I • t, N "A u7w 1' a7 ; r : l8 v y 1_o k g i.W$ a •,.. ,.. -_ �I u t , n W �Na•V , •. ET. ,?,2 F °i _ / -O SRO• O `N W4rAi.NU—N • 1.LWq OY./ � I.I i • �,T R .-4. . T MI ° •DON O ° ✓o ° m^4r rV1+ uOS ' iOV GPr If^ 1L_0�• ' W •^ .. .' /1 • 2 &tO- ry `'- IP, v8' m•. =G �a 'M Im _ d Op - � rT' O/! , I la W YO roW • ° "'1 - � � $ s ezewy� • 7. O 2 N9 � 4 (�OP n ^ ,3�1 � , now ZIebJ " E.-..E., Aw q' m , 1 ;V 7 c Cll ' ro :Y ▪ - n � �o ���-I y mo r N fW I� N. aR• m.� .,, r ,,% N "' moo ' "° m lu,a , $ A "._._ w�• I e, Z Z z _ o _ STREETc. A �,ar 0 I r s8 ..° o us` a... �.. J ,N I.,�. 0 I ''r CU7: off. 2 1- • H u s r0 �v4.48 o d lh 8a '8 Ia 1`rTI �I:7 • .n ' e S . , 1 I I e Z I .,.. ,, , "are/a a ^ Ids 7 NI ii rn o RD'222 �r �N91.f6:T53A.E "/1;gI L poa° o°J- 8mRI a rrO;o- o ' mLLm -O - O rna a c Ij r 1. r 500 NW_ tF e W �1 Wa- a m (W V�i� '�IVN � N�jNOr lm r- A O0a IW • SEE MA 2 IE 30C 4• 's 1 C TH41-.4 0 EXHIBIT E-1 LU 'I 1-0004 1� 1 aK OP gr r IRON MOUNTAIN IN BLVD. to — ,„.. ...p,.-- — i } ! � R,..1 ., --.� g+ / ems . I! if I I g I gl �% 4 1 P ? ii rel TV II iF � ro \ _ I I 1 te �,f a iNfi j8G I------- .,�a�.maaaiava Piv m�ww -- ' r. mzz zOm y.ND. ®A Oc� � � mRi rO g , q SOyn'O iy4,DDT <P4A I'4.-1D1iId y ® wo_ CJ 1/47 N o UJ 1 O I— O 2 X m& � C G G h� W � co m, s 6 Q PROPOSED PERMIT SET ' HOUSE 01 i� rho o e SITE PLAN �a7C and�erRG. e 0,:4,1.1,bb a??A , _, 2 Lake Oeweao,OR 9/304 w �tokh) 71 W-0 IRON MOUNTAIN BLVD. r y_ �o .E 4 i iiI Hf /---- ------- 11 kt,... Ok , ; 4! ( '- -- I- - 11 -,... ,,,- r_. _._ ,,, _, ',71 '_—' -- — /- — — — — L — QE 1 ti d yP -- ;: .8 _.__..__'--iu�via•w com aa�++oa.�n.�w���o.�� -- aA�L t E __.. _ — —k sR ' a ° 1 6 B r° i g L S M ts i a - — W o I— o 00 NL If:1 me r UU [% G g s r_ uJ m o a PROPOSED MCAULIFFE[ PERMITSET - ? 1k{! ® R g SITE PLAN m tow Chaa�ndlRRd. LaAe Oswego,OR 87304 y 1`-F VPWF4O T.II 3 4 filli 111~I'1'11'1117 m 111111-- `� m ; ii iniaa.i.l.i,i IS .� x No '_:i ,, .,.........s. c) e II i h ,. t1,T, ' C . oiri 1 1' r` I 11111 t ii� c ' 1iI11,111111I. 1 I MIME , n 9RHR I1!I1Ifi1hjicuI I ITil�i ! 0 RIP I. Iid ) i i PIIIP II:::.!1 1111 i i t�`1 I 1 . iil!i!I Ithililmbh < 11Y11; C.� �, ill 1 �-b U ,'IIIPP/ 1111111191i111- "111 1 '>".111110111111 1 Ith, lb r• '' 1 lhlilll�lilllllllll�l�l '> 1i'I i- I I'. i I111 1111�j�, I 1 1 1 l i.11 1a1111'i'r j > P .,�I�lilll10ll1lilllll0 � !�III1111 I i11111 > II Illlli II 1111111_i ,• > I 1 1 i 11111 iii:■h. 11 a. y I!I I!A lli 1k! ll 41.11I1NI S i too,i�■��i r tI! ii11I �.i,�l,�,1 ilili,Y �_ t= In I'i'll u I i, :- - i d,olildd,i,oldh�m 111111111 4 011 ill i1i4;•i I!il'd"i i lit''iii�iill jililidil$1111141111lll1111111` 11 111 1 I I 111111111 1111 II I11111111111 IEI 1�111111.1.11 I1y 61,6�LhIJ Ii 1L111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIl MIIIIII 1 11 s IIIIIIIIIIi„,, y < y u 1YY1 1 111 0 10 111 1110111II ll 1 1111.1.116 iiiijliilijiIII- I 1 1 IØJiuuii Mi Itl i " �� 11, �I IIIA i 11111 C" '1CI C'I1lCII 1,, . 1 I I 11141'i 1lf1I 1'I 111 I 'i i1 i,I I i 1,1ppI;''•I'11" 1111'I III Ii., } �I��I�lil'lllll�lil'I illlilli .�ll�ijilljij 111117•,111 itillllglil!!l'llldilil11i1111111i111 ., 1111111111111141101.10010 I 1111111111I 111 1111111 IIIIh 1111,1,1i111,1,1i,,1,1 II,I,I I,il,l,l 11 IIII111111 111 11141-1 ' �'.'i,Iillll 111 111 1111 !! Ii11I,11111i1,111111 III IIIIIiC i11,1 i ,.•l J.I.I.LI.I.I IIhhJ.L I.W.611.I.LL AI ill 1 ..111,1 III 11111illl it IC I,i 14.,.,lil,l,l -11�NI:1�11111■11111YYI1Y1111■IYIYIY111Y111Y1111 11 1 !Iiili�l•lii illi Il Ilil1•�,rliliiiiiiilili �ry p'y���Iy'�qq 1n�In-I m=1 i i iiI i14 I I J �J L LJ :❑- i I.11111 1. ICI ---- 111 10. 11.1:111:1.1!i �raTara � -- CIII1j1IIIn i�l Iil Y lY 1 i u ni,�pnnaplgi�lli�� 1111I1 1i111111l1 I�I11,1II,IIllryl111,1,111i .. 1 I''V III:1�111 Ili AY 1_•,y111yy.10111iy11 I�' 1�1'��I I'i 1 I Will l '11'"C ijl ih C I10-. 111' ii li�l!l I i 1 dIllil 1111 iljli"1111111;Ai& IIIIII1I111ibiddik1. !! 1111111 f _.I 1111 l�il11 ! If,if ' 111,11I1 —-- lI'lull 'iii�ll -__ II�Il111l!11 i; !i iiril' 111111111111 III 11 'I I� • I1111,111 11 I III MN 11j 111 l�lul.11 1. 11 11111J rrrl I rP••rl - rl�r- Il�11�i��� �I 1t!ffi=1 I'i I'14'I'1'I 1'1'1 ',ilyl,,Iilll1111IIIII 1 lliliillflilYllll}L7111'�i I.I.I.I.W.I.i.I.1.1.1.1:1 1..IIId.I.I.I.I...I.6.. If 1,1 III 1 '1. . II lilt trill i_ $11V y ni�o oo Do l I— M43L 2 1 yn i al r " a 2 a I` > G G- 6 (', MCAULIFFE D $ s I EXISTING _ PERMIT SET HOUSE �1 Pk •� 1 ELEVATIONS b9]ChandlerRtl "W., FFF"`, ® Lake Os ,[]R 9]J04 .sewc....c owrco�s.7.....no 5 j...,,, -,_,....„,........... -B . . ,-,_,.....,_ ......, m , x yi polipi,1 11 iyli 111111111111111'1 0111'11'111 c riqpilly„II.,,„,,,ii ,..,=. ils 2 ET) -1 1111111101111111116111111111111 MIMI Iiiihimoolmillii z '? illillArrnIf. / l''''''11 -2 0 1101111111111 :' 1 1 1 liAliilliligeilik 1 Illiiibliiiii s. z T e 1111111100111#0,11 Ippilii.1 <, o oldrP,Tg., ? NON:10 1 11101111.1.,1 1 1 to 40,1p, , x i ipmripplortpInk 1 ithlylilyly 1 y 1 b JIMIt 1111M mH PoPhili11111101 rii ; hi*!.I Ili,I I a,, .., i P 111:1101111111111111111111111 PINIIIIIiIIIIIIIiiiii11111 'N , m ii"Nililli:gibliiilir 1 DI z < _, 110111111110 !plink: „ z IIIIIIIPAIMillilligil ' 11116r 't, ilidligiliiiIIII.1 NIL 11,1,10,1,„„„1,,,„,l, 1 1 .51,..,,,,,,,„„, 111 1 41,11 11111 FiTiPPRN l k ilytht.d!,11,a., 7 iii!hm! p th'Prrrmiimi Pi pi,Pi Ili i i N11111110 '; .14.rhpi.1•10.0,Al rilillepplii„,4„.1 111111111111111111 ': hi', • •••• ') 1111,11111,111111,11,01n111.1 1111111111111111111 1111111 111111111114 ) , 1 Imam 1111Mbh$1111111414 11111iil EippiP / ,R--,H-- I 14111011111iftilil 'III HIII 10' lilmihhhhhilhi,11, t 11111110 Elitt--W , i imildl'" <', wilililiiiiiiii11101 uil 1 op,i•wom•u, ' P 00 11111111 11111PI 111111 i>l, 11111111N III Illitrlig/ INIMININilla an 0111111110114 ,..111 • ::: 111 111111111N1111111111 .iiir ElittEilloLlr- Fr 4, 0140 ..t, ii" Fill . 1 1 ,,, 11111,111411111111110 It l'. 1 FFITH 1 I EMI ‘., ? . i Hill i 1611111 i plo' loons ,.. 1 doll 1 II., Ipirilli: ‘orgrrwillii hi; i 1 1-111 '$ 1 1 ; /111111411bbliiiii ill . 1011111411141gri AI 14111111141010*pp 1 1 ily I' ''? 111111111 I 111111101111'II III aliiiik I 1 11111111111111111411111111111111 11 -11-1.77.-1 1 i itoromiliiiii , 'oil oil_1.1 I mi'I Illnli h PICINI 110111111114111 111 ?', IIIIIIII IN , 11411111514 , l' ,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII[111!II.11:b11111/1::''111 Witiliiiii11411P111°1'.' ' OR 119•11.19 14' 1 I ' 11$11011111110111biliMilMilirniMITI1 ? 0011!IIIIIIIIIIMPAII 1 ' i 11111/111/111111011113 ' er I) 4•11'1.11'1111;1111111;111111 I '' ' Ir-,... ', 101111111111111111111111,11111 1 :1 k&, ",.. - '1 MIIII°011°1 '' ' -- Hi 1.1g III IIIIIII, 111111 ''IIIIIIIIIII ,IJTA r ,r' Ili mosso di 111 .i ,:. ,, ...........11 1 1 11 Ill 11111111 IIII, i 111011111111111.1 ? 1 oploomplio i". , c II WI iihriihlibliblib <, ‘i ''CliI1.1li,1IIiII1illI111ifil.11IIiilliii 4,, . 11111111101111111111111 :'igNIONIbililli i ,1imiplipli ., 111,41,1,41,0,10,,,, . „„„„„,„„. , bh!„ „b„„....! ,........_____,,,,, _ ....._,,,,_,,,................ ',' EXISTING :,.,.. MCAULIFFE ° 1.. 1 Il- id PERMITSET 11°USE '1 179111 f!eiC., 6 :". ,1 ,,, ''' ' ELEVATIONS - p Co-bN /V r,m II O-Om QnCCt 9-��00 _H noo" r r,Cl"n V 7 'S . ® 4 � A1, Z r 71 7 r _: ''1 Ti K11 111_ '1111dAlliirl, J A Ni Y TI 'YD Nor , / III .. r5 i W �� '� ii c� ; iJ li ',„)c, q Il (--1I It ` rri_ s - ' 11 111-1 II 1 L 1 R1.1 l F ,-.4'4.1§mi II en linj o0 = nM i �, `, ` c p' MCAULIFFE v 1 PIS w J >� m a: S w E E EXISTING PERMIT SET HOUSE �' 6 AND PE,6001'4.TES INC 1 7 1007 Chandler Rd, '�'88 '" �, g FLOOR PLAN 9kaOswaBo,ORB7904 .rnofns f m "'I F. , ,.i ______.......ii 3f f:SL 2_ y 6 (: c2F.,"-C1.2. , „.,-, ......--7 QV1 `yso2 �\ o = - tf aoo� a 2.,N M1 h / I` t^ • (A<' . 8 ' . % - r 4a 1 N) fll , t II 0 ,, x1 a i r, s ' S i a Z 1 � E - r #r , ._ w ,,, , n � i w a 7; 1 L P D : I' a mEl r4 P EXISTING MCAULIFFE ll�(II* P al x PERMIT SET HOUSE 8 (a s FLOOR PLAN 1007C 0�ndler Rd on Ve o Y Lake Oswe OR 97304 \\2 H ^ \\;// °,:R : d / // ; ;! 9 v __ — J nfl // - \ r 0 §/( / • \ G }/ , § t » (/ $ ' l' [1--- 1 :w §& 0 \ z . . Amy . _ �. ^ .. {/ . } ,( t« Alk ) . ~� : . }8 ; \ 1� . } } . ) \ } ( } } ( \ , ) _} CO . . .\ _ 1 {�. � . . r\ . ; 22 i ..,. Moss �` ƒ [ / ` } ; ; EXISTING , PERMIT SET \ 01 Oh* � g ° ) _ ,i FLOOR PLAN ` m: 1 : . ,__�_�_ 9 10 e,.'w".'" aLr- _-__ ''''--- :: ,®, IN \i CID Hp COI, hat f;.r V f j I.,r 1 L 1 ) e �l pl 1or��no.. f11 ' _ I'.� c n "I �IIj �'n A.. ,' �l,1 Atimmimmill m �... m ll 1� °= �,J I1I ,UHI• ! I> !I I I,I,I,I,I,Id�Ej �=d r�ii 1r1�i�ir�Il :Cm: Dr . °z Ill 0El.., J z ,,UUUL Id JI.. W i�iiilii.i.i.iiiili.i.I � 'iM'I'i'I'I'Po'i'���I'P Ilk � d n 1, yhhyyllhyyl �lyl I y "0111 , '.irrKi. }} t�il.' :� 11 .��. _ �ll�1�I �b I�I�f�isf{i I P I:I ., i_I i�1� 111911.1111191111 I 1 1 I" i ,„, Jii 1 i,, ' I 1 ' , i�i ::� i.1 1ii i;;!.. laLg Illfl1i II 5 !�I 1111111111I���a ll 1 1� ` 1 Ir � I Il 11111 1111111 ll 11 El!!- ` �... . �.. I:N�IIINiflllm .. 111111111, ::N hs, .... p111111111111111 1 111111 61i'I�.�® e _ li..... �N� la i il1 iillililyi i lP"'ilil ! �.... NM '�IllsailIIIIII�i Ih l� , i , num i-i it 1 is II I� F. �{1 N i. it -. �e. l ll F q�hl; ,' I `�h:�' _ ,11II!!1 �, , lld,1 1i ii 11'i�'.rl! 1 1 is t f I! ....�71p o.N91gM I!nnminoui .;i �^ k'3 ..I gf[ ©�s 1 i t t D�7©�01] I aii*Ej gall I� a ,� v >> 111 j n j a ggggq1 a ,,. I ntr. loll ,,,,„,a 4-A4."1"-1!1 1.340 4,4Fga. ,� A€ 9 6gv of 9N-4 4 S g '4 F6 ill iNKIIM 1. ;ERNE I. Fl Y - i NYC! �ggR� l i 1 xe �� r% a = °, � rITA 1 1 III Ili l' 11 R � � hig � tg � Qu ,9k :i 9 , il ,i 'i om mw d, I INIi il 1 rll t 14, ,.,, „Ike; i;',j: �Itip ",t�1in MI, r s r ru Sri,`, 99 y ; , G{t }a n z / N Yzi 4 C . nls PROPOSED �_ MCAULIFFE �� ''� a w '1„ PERMIT SET HOUSE 01 QI x ELEVATIONS soLin*vs iuc. ELEVATIONS 1 A V v7 LaA1 Oswe OR 87304 ' t :.5 a F E 1 '�'* d Fd��� R n }'" tl 5 h4fi e.2 ,n,, �23 F -F 'p, y..y z M1 , 11}li�.i,ll ti,t' P !T A - 0 h r F Y ., fr^m� ii a m�$ gb apz 8Y@ 'W A� q M� ii: it �3�d p a4SAm £ 6 off.. $}ds � m ®,, I ? u.. W a g a k� p vq s$§d�c C frl I I I{7 it�ii 8ppi60 ,,O ah' - �041'21FAQgg1 1 Y �'i ��p;70 461 p &A' ', g9✓• ,Y A, 5f, 9A4,g .4 „ _,I�t�H. r k��n f I 1 i o s aa, bi� �-uaaax8 AM z > 7a xl1:.� �`,uafl 1 ���l1 w i P4 gym§ R � .€g egg 9 a 11, r --{ ' 79 '� ls a ' i I �� kg.5 6 F 9a�5�� € o g "' ...1.�„�_I_1wl 1 �_ , m .a„'r e w g r 6 Ill �11Y �f , �' 1 / 9 if i fli I \ > its , i 44 I r .4� _ m -0 JkJ :3'''.:41 7/I � { : i...Ill ( �y <� x I �.m �I, ,' 1 t. Ifs!= j ft'< ji M:� <1 .! !ill1,:i {I:'il, 1t I 1 E nl,�.'P,P 111 'id' a�RAH I EF ,1 141' �T 7 ) i 1 VI■sm= ` Mr7 IjHF}j ° f j' ' ',I1r1,,1,, htIJ. ft7 ) S- I 1 Il , ii, I 1rt0 ' dt I t'apt} I, rye I) r s1 �� ! 1r�I�t17i Ii g — `', � I f-. Ni - h i ir t & ;ftr f I; �1 ' N; f tr �a S i � �; Y. I I 1 � ill , 1lat:I} ,r t 0� ' 1 , r ` I I 111 n} . I , IIf _, II II a t k!, { 1 I 1 1, u1t1, 't „.i ' ' ,-• °/! :, >I = = o° C C [% L ,2 PROPOSED E # MCAULIFFE ro •�` 6 R ek D '� , A "v C1 rR®r®S`® PERMIT SET t HOUSE .J�t$ i '3 !'I ELEVATIONS lake Dswx9o.OR 973o4/ ....V.. —..- ... 1 '.1 „„„S• 1, 2. I I ..----'-'•,-..--f II igli,i ,- yA: i 445 . '222INP224`' 2 0 ,„!, X '''l —r; '1,Oli(9).q Tr; ,1-, i , u, eg: i-I! , }2 vi, "a:'6 1 '...---. r---.' '' q 0 7,i P.5 '4 D.-' ri ''4!!,,,•,:i -4 i ''' %, g i i-11 ' L.4 r __:--4,,Tr.,,,.-- -,-.-`n n r 1 ...,; 7) (3° 4-3 11 I1 1 10 1 a.) --1 ,,(t,)481 ! -,;,..—!t" -- -,1,,'.. -x_.,_ - -".. ''' '' .r.j„:qLi7 r..'r'''''''.7;',..4: ''.;'7'41tV'r r' — r v`g , :,•' V 1 z , . gNn _ _..11i ' ; 1 i ',....,' ' •. "4 , - i4,10''.. '. ..[1 ril<lij w•. 1 p 1' gi 1 11 , ilt 17:FiStr-4;7' ElA PI,. 1 . 11 , r; [ , N t [ '---,-4.-- , „... ,. r/, ti, 1"--:.r, :1 4 —•,----- L . ,,,.,, ,: . . „,..„:„ ,--.° , , , ,I,;.\-- . .1 14; i Td44. 1.„ , ' .---. . ' : ''-:ii ;,'F' 1 '" ' '4;7 -' ri 1 31. ili iv, - -n ih.,,, / '11' !TIM , ;',,'E. , ITITY1117 I Trrl ILLYILMFILTri 1 1 i i 1 ri[i ,g '"g . , 'MENU , , ___ I ..L. .- 51 ,.„,„, r r tm4PaR,ig —, 0 0 ., _ .....,,..c ..---1- ,..0 z; r— le a,,Y,.1 i ..7 c c; x> ";.„7,',7-` ' - "- -.E. ,-r, r.E .wo n iiii i , ; Ni : _,. ,,,,, th ; , , ,,,4 , ,.:,; ,,,..,-,,, 4>0 —) E— ,sv,prrer- _..., ..;;,. E. 1 g -... .„. / . ....:1.,-,' 11 Ei' ,1,, , 2 0 _ __, , ',......r.' I— 9 .....v, — --,.11.1 --I ""- , i - N PROPOSED 1 v .• - FLOOR PLAN " PERMIT SET 1 Z MCAULIFFE HOUSE MI ( PeK 1007 Chandler Rd 8 ,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,v.s;., Lake Oswego OR 97304 ''',7,=.74'2gKit,ler'r.t"...VV4Tgn 1 3 ,m • d bib , . t .. ii Vi y° , s su . Nt II , m r a( n,c C) pi C'w . " g .ytO (w ?Rk � �© s� Or; h s II per,,,' v .t ._ rI 70 `Mil 1� i 9 ° r' � _ ID 1 f� iill p 5 0 fig..I../4� 316E ,,,,, ' 0 c.! LI s' I) ' 11 ;s 4 r••=g t'g,- ,r.P.,. •ir m •� -a� 1 II � �4, FEZ F it• p t , ,, '4 �' ,, I� AMi ,I m. 4 5.; ., r(111, , i ,C i • Z3. 8 - ,, 1 g'R i o `o 5 D Ig C L [' I. Im z °s , U 4 PROPOSED MCAULIFFE Y �{h// f� W - .$,g 'a _ PERMIT SET - HOUSE il T }li�A' jl/ u FLOOR PLAN eOnweg OR07. 773 b7f 5 ��AAA Z� 14 —y m Lake w 9o.oRo,3o4 0.,0,,,..,� Pi =j Ufa E d ED # pP „ r 1-. § I NE O a� ;, n im I° gax — Z -'7, ;yam '¢ E;,c) z F., a P au, y nmwr .e i U7 ,.s,n y ' o , O Go g i rag s yL U. xs - 0 T ee isa€ '' ^J- :R r _ 41 U� yR!_ _ _ 9 h Z •.�a % 9 B© --__.i = € 6�w�Q el:, g X , J VI 1 t §I 1 I a - - z En,_ 5 0 ,` o I. b o c i R.F'=r ."(, <3'7,'i 7 wi D g ii' t PROPOSED MCOUSFFE m e �� /J� n W m - K PERMIT SETH E , ANIJassoL„•Y R''1007 Chandler Rd. i s FLOOR PLAN aha0a�9o.ORB,3o4 ..dµ.....,,w« ;1, -,:.Ls 15 r q i. " .:.::-e c3 1 _ }` Ij u` a ��"ate e gr Xi N I TI 0 1 �p i d 0 #1 XI I. �I r I I of Q IIa /1 I �- k,,,A.,, c_ ,.... ,,..,_,, 1_ If , 1 / 1 , rl rrl uin'n ni f'Chl:,` ri f 10 l t ! ,t Pk Lij r> C> Pud a e PROPOSED MCAULIFFE 1lorlid f' 1Ck w gi B ELEC. PERMIT SET HOUSE /] w �" � ELEC. PLAN LakeOsOswegotlOR07304 lllflf Y� . 16 � a nu a V ° ® 1 ! 1 fl Ll i � c E i pK c� o n c n e n' q II w. o CA 1 qb 0 xi i�� Mini/6_..., n ,E , 0 m ; do S Y j� II i! G it . I I um II 11 f L4i1 _.1 I I I t ° -J I - Vim ' it gi 1 1 2., C> b b D 2 PROPOSED C MCAULIFFE + ELEC. {D PERMIT SET HOUSE ? i1 hey/ Rg . G�G�I. r�!'119 10A7ChaiMland d JJJA994ex....nR 687 ...e4kE�cccTAAn 17 1-- , - . svc:, o ,3 � H m 1/ m z AT � F a9 F g I _H n m 1 m I II z I /- Ih 1' 1 d �a o a } 811 � -- I / >4 g 1 MCAULIFFE �Oil I>IL L DD fill tfek PROPOSED pERMITSET 1 HOUSE ,,7J4•'� wg ELEC. PLAN 1097 Chandler Rd. n „. LIAO Oawedd.OR 0"04 o9Tata-iwoug33.w�nn.wm,aw 18 ' ql I) ,,, t' Il ,- N (' 4 i r [ ,-- -------5 ...--...„--- 1 '.[,..., ,--- t1'..,_ 17, li ,-. \\[[t ( 4.7S ,!.1§ .rt. ,-.A 8 .,, L :1- ' /.' 46'''''-" 0 ', FG.9,•L.YE.1 D.E.G14. ;, • I R 0 '\'''-^•'.--.'''-'14i''.....\',..,"— " e --' , . jo :_--, . . -,-,- 0 - -n tii.' -n 1!11 A . _ ..„i ,gt41P-rgig 5t 11 6' , .ftlEXA DOI / / 00 “ , ; .., 1.1 :: —.... st'Ifil • P.i5 l' e V,g,gi 1 i9i ; •-t.,.. §0 ‘, 1 :,... PROPOSED PERMT SET ' W GmAoJo s E ROOF PLAN '%.Te.•,'..Y2".2;i4',If4,'...Tii•'.ik' 19 20 F AF g fig Pr, it ,. e v w R Mir R $ o 92 ad ;?#PREigfg og"2i >.F r*mor m r �6� aR e J € B van pp N gg $pp< CC pp M x r a A� 8 b03° k @ �a�3b�n�°Y"oF SFN �'-n b�®g' A �R T i If {'ARM p @ga � �`�� gy D6 pG $ F�" pho � �''�� €€!? ����q5 � �i! �� @� $ �l '�5ad8 H8g" ®ger fv aee € s "o a F.�s $ � � Y Y gke 'tgg..s.,,a Eta g�e:t6; g' a a,g it . s 9 fi'2F Pet'2, Z a E °aM. d6'' ' ,4 -.qa,g ‘Ili i• a�,ag a a E _g a2 aP aM, p i aAg !3 : 1tq m 3 i w R 0 or§ BAR R .R x gsli " m I 1 2%"e n 4 ib 5M � � �llt Ro opIGISAmISA 'Rt-g-pg- A c a: �p�o : 3 gRg E' 7_,f O tl� �'fy �n A8A98 �i� iE R� E R E i�° r 6EE , 7 7P plrg,n y" g C € AY i 1 ga np 61) mina;49P5 5e' t I+ 1 "A 1 z ilt F g r '", R9`�4 1 (rRR :;: a E 0 U �- _ m{ 1�' n �1 t� S @ ` ' � �`� i" i _ (p €5q i 8 .ip -i- ---3! \per'I ,;1 '?Ill m M aQ. q b $ me Vs,Ii Mi- CI e43�e P m °FO— z E8 'tb°11 m Z �' A ip ZO ''' it 't-1 ra 1 g (� a y % 1— mn Pi gOi. CI ¢ ,f — 4, 1 ` M k— Z 6 — II1� F ep��'d i . �— it i � a , � � 5b I. °`� ' - I a e uxcv.. 1 . W @E a Me g fl g�k 5n5 ' QIII mom � \v . c4g� °'' I. n.r � s; sLZ q ea A q i 4 g i M Et, „ .„........,,...„,.,.. N\ 4, 0 4 ,,,,J- ...z,„ „ „ Fl MI 4 et ,q. q32 ,...).„ 1 T m ¢ e n U N • t f , ni F i -- : V V m M te, u , • ,‹,,i1".:77. . ati i . . , ,. ,,,„„ I,. „„, ,,, :., AqiiiiH 11 IP i ��<, ,,,,, t 1 F i -P 'k ii 01 F�� ��!R R I?I 5>� rr"' gSt ^ ' g! P �i , 'iR�o , s l m r RC m. (I.e s "6 ti ti °§fix, 55 <, ` h A q _ \\,...,,,,,t1I MENI I ,----:,.1 i ¢5 yy q4 e , , RR ^ 13 g rL ,wa_ XL' LLI o I— pQ mm r i PROPOSED f 1CAUi 1f= yJyf 0—;fS,II' E.J PERMIT 5ET H�U k q fl d� k 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Hurd Windows & Doors Customer /(1>\\ wood QUOTATION 4520 Stinnett Ln.N.E. Phone: 1-503-516-5740 Wad.,w _„0toor Keizer,OR 97303 Fax: 1-503-463-6395 wwdi@comcast.net BILL TO: SHIP TO: Phone Phone Fax Fax Contact Info Contact Info QUOTE# QUOTE DATE CUSTOMER PO# ORDER PLACED BY DATE REQUESTED 381735 10/6/2010 3328 gostrander 1/1/0001 JOB NAME BID BY TERMS ORDER DATE SHIP DATE 10/6/2010 1 I/7/2010 LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 100-1 H3 Aluminum Clad Windows Casement Left 20.75 x 37.75 Custom: Frame Width=20.75,Frame Height=37.75 :'i Complete Unit Frame Color=Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior r� Sash-Panel Color=Eggshell Dual Insulated,Low-E,Produce w/SS Intercept Spacer&Argon Hardware=Shipped with Unit,E-Guard Finish(Beige), Encore,03 Bronze `\;, •Screen Option=Full Screen Applied,03 Bronze,Fiberglass Mesh H : Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial, 7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer,2W3H I. 20.76 No Nail Fin 4 11/16" Trim Extender= 1 7/8",Extender Location=Sill Only Rough Opening:21.25" X 38.25" Room Location: 46 East Upper Front Bed Overall Unit Size:20.75"X 37.75" LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 200-1 1 H3 Aluminum Clad Windows Casement Right 20.75 x 37.75 Custom: Frame Width_20.75,Frame Height=37.75 1 l Complete Unit i i 11 Frame Color=Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior . ,l Sash-Panel Color=Eggshell Dual Insulated,Low-E,Produce w/SS Intercept Spacer&Argon Hardware—Shipped with Unit,E-Guard Finish(Beige),Encore,03 Bronze Screen Option=Full Screen Applied,03 Bronze,Fiberglass Mesh Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial, 7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer,2W3H F:,. 20.75 No Nail Fin 4 11/16" Trim Extender= 1 7/8",Extender Location=Sill Only Rough Opening:21.25" X 38.25" Room Location: 45 East Upper Front Bed Overall Unit Size:20.75"X 37.75" EXHIBIT E-11 *All drawings are viewed from exterior of window. Page 1 Of 14 LU 11-0004 (14'PAC -S) 35 QUOTE# QUOTE DATE CUSTOMER PO# ORDER PLACE!)BY DATE REQUESTED 381735 10/6/2010 3328 gostrander 1/1/0001 JOB NAME BID BY TERMS ORDER DATE SHIP DATE 10/6/2010 11/7/2010 LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 300-1 1 H3 Aluminum Clad Windows Casement Fixed 23.75 x 53.5 Custom: Frame Width=23.75,Frame Height=53.5 Complete Unit F : Frame Color—Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior Sash-Panel Color=Eggshell w� �•° ° l Dual Insulated,Low-E Hurd.Divided Lite,Colonial,7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer,2W4H No Nail Fin 4 11/16" F � _r,-- Trim Extender= 1 7/8",Extender Location=Sill Only Rough Opening:24.25" X 54" Room Location: 44 Upper Attic Window Overall Unit Size:23.75"X 53.5" LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 400-1 1 Aluminum Clad Wood Windows Double Hung Operating/Operating/Operating 76.40625 x 36.625 20 x 14,Frame Width=25.46875,Frame Height=36.625,Sash Split—50/50 tE OHM EMI Complete Unit,DP Rating=Standard ? Bali Frame Color"Eggshell, AAMA 2604,Natural,Pine Interior a3 t Sash-Panel Color=Eggshell Dual Insulated,Low-E, Standard Bead,Tempered Glass=Yes,both lites .46375 46875 25 0875`. 76:U]U v Hardware—Applied, Standard Hardware Type,Oil Rubbed Bronze-FB,Jamb Liner Type— Concealed Screen Option=Full Screen Applied,Eggshell,Fiberglass Mesh Unit 1 Bottom,2 Bottom, 3 Bottom:None Unit 1 Top,2 Top,3 Top:Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial,7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer, 3W2H Mulls 1:Vertical Factory,0"thick Mulls 2:Vertical Factory,0"thick Vinyl Nail Fin,No Drip Cap 6-9/16",Pine Jamb Extension,Natural,Applied,Interior Mull Casing Applied,Entire Set Rough Opening:77.15625" X 37.125" Room Location: Upper Mstr Bath Overall Unit Size:76.40625"X 36.625" *A,36awings are viewed from exterior of window. Page 2 Of 14 QUOTE# QUOTE DATE CUSTOMER PO# ORDER PLACED BY DATE REQUESTED 381735 10/6/20 I 0 3 328 gostrander 1/1/0001 JOB NAME BID BY TERMS ORDER DATE SHIP DATE 10/6/2010 11/7/2010 LINE## DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 500-1 3 Aluminum Clad Wood Windows Double Hung Operating 37.46875 x 56.625 32 x 24, Frame Width=37.46875,Frame Height=56.625,Sash Split=50/50 Complete Unit,DP Rating=Standard Frame Color=Eggshell,AAMA 2604, Natural,Pine Interior Sash-Panel Color=Eggshell Dual Insulated,Low-E, Standard Bead Hardware=AppIied, Standard Hardware Type,Oil Rubbed Bronze-FB,Jamb Liner Type= Concealed Screen Option=Full Screen Applied,Eggshell,Fiberglass Mesh Unit 1 Bottom:None Unit 1 Top:Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial,7/8", Eggshell,Natural, Pine Interior,w/spacer, 3W2H Vinyl Nail Fin,No Drip Cap 6-9/16", Pine Jamb Extension,Natural,Applied,Entire Set Rough Opening:38.21875" X 57.125" Room Location: Mstr Bed Overall Unit Size:37.46875"X 56.625" LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 600-1 1 **No certification or DP rating available for this unit** tommJ ^ Aluminum Clad Wood Inswing Patio Door Stile And Rail Door Fixed/Left/Fixed 82 x s- 82.5 , Unit 1, 3:2-0 x 6-10, Door Panel Width—21.875,Door Panel Height=80,Frame Width= a 23.4375, Frame Height—82.5 r Unit 2:3-0 x 6-10,Door Panel Width=33.875,Door Panel Height=80,Frame Width— v�. , 35.125,Frame Height=82.5 Complete Unit f I23 Frame Color—Eggshell,AAMA 2604,Natural, Pine Interior ` ' Sash-Panel Color=Eggshell,4 1/2" Stile,7 1/2"Bottom Rail,4 1/2"Top Rail, Standard Sill Dual Insulated,Low-E, Standard Bead,Tempered Glass=Yes,both lites Double Bore/No Handle,Oil Rubbed Bronze-FB Hinge Color Screen Option=No Screen, Screen Channel Astragal Required—None Unit 1,3:Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial, 7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer, 1W5H Unit 2:Hurd Divided Lite, Colonial, 7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer,2W5H Mulls 1: Vertical Factory,0"thick Mulls 2:Vertical Factory,0"thick Vinyl Nail Fin,No Drip Cap 6-9/16",Pine Jamb Extension,Natural,Not Applied, Sill Nosing Applied,Entire Set Rough Opening:82.5" X 83" Room Location: Upper Mstr Bed Overall Unit Size:82"X 82.5" *All drawings are viewed from exterior of window. Page 3 Of 14 37 QUOTE# QUOTE DATE CUSTOMER PO# ORDER PLACED BY DATE REQUESTED 3 81735 10/6/2010 3328 gostrander 1/1/0001 JOB NAME BID BY TERMS ORDER DATE SHIP DATE 10/6/2010 11/7/2010 LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 700-1 , 113 Aluminum Clad Windows Casement Left 20.75 x 49.75 Custom:Frame Width=20.75,Frame Height=49.75 Complete Unit i d` Frame Color=Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior " Sash-Panel Color—Eggshell Dual Insulated, Low-E,Produce w/SS Intercept Spacer&Argon Hardware=Shipped with Unit,E-Guard Finish(Beige),Encore,03 Bronze S. Screen Option=Full Screen Applied,03 Bronze,Fiberglass Mesh of, Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial,7/8", Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer,2W4H 2215 No Nail Fin 4 11/1.6" Trim Extender= 1 7/8",Extender Location=Sill Only Rough Opening:21.25" X 50.25" Room Location: 51 Upper Front Bed Middle Overall Unit Size:20.75"X 49.75" LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 800-1 3 H3 Aluminum Clad Windows Casement Fixed 20.75 x 49.75 Custom: Frame Width=20.75,Frame Height=49.75 Complete Unit ' Frame Color—Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior Sash-Panel Color=Eggshell Dual Insulated,Low-E Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial,7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer,2W4H No Nail Fin 4 1 1/16" F .v: .is: Trim Extender= 1 7/8",Extender Location=Sill Only Rough Opening:21.25" X 50.25" Room Location: 48,49,50 Upper Front Bed Middle Overall Unit Size:20.75"X 49.75" LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 900-1 1 H3 Aluminum Clad Windows Casement Right 20.75 x 49.75 Custom:Frame Width=20.75,Frame Height—49.75 Complete Unit \ - Frame Color—Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior Sash-Panel Color=Eggshell Dual Insulated,Low-E,Produce w/SS Intercept Spacer&Argon Hardware=Shipped with Unit, E-Guard Finish(Beige),Encore,03 Bronze Screen Option—Full Screen Applied,03 Bronze,Fiberglass Mesh Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial,7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer,2W4H . ar,7s No Nail Fin 4 11/16" Trim Extender= 1 7/8",Extender Location=Sill Only Rough Opening:21.25" X 50.25" Room Location: 47 Upper Front Bed Middle Overall Unit Size:20.75"X 49.75" *Ai38 awings are viewed from exterior of window. Page 4 Of 14 QUOTE# QUOTE DATE CUSTOMER PO# ORDER PLACED BY DATE REQUESTED 381735 10/6/2010 3328 gostrander 1/1/0001 JOB NAME BID BY TERMS ORDER DATE SHIP DATE 10/6/2010 11/7/2010 LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 1000-1 2 Aluminum Clad Wood Sash Pack Kits-Non Hurd Frame Double Hung Operating 36 x 61.75 Custom: Sash Opening Width—36,Sash Opening Height=61.75, Sash Split=50/50 Complete Sash Kit, Sill Angle=Custom.,Custom.Sill Angle=7 Frame Color=Eggshell,AAMA 2604,Natural,Pine Interior lea Sash-Panel Color=Eggshell Dual Insulated,Low-E,Standard Bead,Produce w/Technoform Spacer&Argon ■ �{s Standard Hardware Type,03 Bronze,Jamb Liner Type=Concealed Screen Option=Full Screen Shipped Separately,Eggshell,AAMA 2604,Outside Screen Width=36,Outside Screen Height=60.25 Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial,7/8", Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior, w/spacer,3W2H Rough Opening:36.5" X 62.25" Room Location: West Upper Bed Back Overall Unit Size:N/AA LINEN DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 1100-1 1 Aluminum Clad Wood Outswing Patio Door Stile And Rail Door Right 36.4375 x 82.5 3-0 x 6-10,Door Panel Width=33.875,Door Panel Height=80,Frame Width=36.4375, 1 Frame Height=82.5 Complete Unit , Frame Color=Eggshell,AAMA 2604,Natural,Pine Interior s3 Sash-Panel Color=Eggshell,4 1/2" Stile, 7 1/2"Bottom Rail,4 1/2"Top Rail, Standard Sill r. Dual Insulated,Low-E,Standard Bead,Tempered Glass=Yes,both lites Double Bore/No Handle,Oil Rubbed Bronze-FB Hinge Color Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial,7/8", Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer,2W5H ,315.075 Vinyl Nail Fin,No Drip Cap 4-9/16" Rough Opening:36.9375" X 83" Room Location: West Side Upper Bed Overall.Unit Size:36.4375"X 82.5" LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 1200-1 1 H3 Aluminum Clad Windows Casement Right 20.75 x 61.75 Custom: Frame Width=20.75,Frame Height=61.75 Complete Unit Frame Color=Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior Sash-Panel Color=Eggshells, Dual Insulated,Low-E,Produce w/SS Intercept Spacer&Argon Hardware=Shipped with Unit,E-Guard Finish(Beige),Encore,03 Bronze Screen Option=Full Screen Applied,03 Bronze,Fiberglass Mesh Hurd Divided Lite, Colonial.,7/8", Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer,2W5H 2075 No Nail Fin 4 11/16" Trim Extender 1 7/8", Extender Location=Sill Only Rough Opening:21.25" X 62.25" Room Location: 25 Main Fir Front Dining Rm Overall Unit Size:20.75"X 61.75" *All drawings are viewed from exterior of window. Page 5 Of 14 39 QUOTE# QUOTE DATE CUSTOMER PO# ORDER PLACED BY DATE REQUESTED 381735 10/6/2010 3328 gostrander 1/1/0001 JOB NAME BID BY TERMS ORDER DATE SHIP DATE 10/6/2010 11/7/2010 LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 1300-1 3 H3 Aluminum Clad Windows Casement Fixed 20.75 x 61.75 Custom: Frame Width—20.75,Frame Height—61.75 Complete Unit Frame Color=Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior Sash-Panel Color=Eggshell F' Dual Insulated,Low-E Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial,7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer,2W5H No Nail Fin 4 11/16" ..2175 Trim Extender= 1 7/8", Extender Location=Sill Only Rough Opening:21.25" X 62.25" Room Location: 26,27,28 Main Flr Front Dining Rm Overall Unit Size:20.75"X 61.75" LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 1400-1 H3 Aluminum Clad Windows Casement Left 20.75 x 61.75 Custom:Frame Width=20.75,Frame Height=61.75 Complete Unit • Frame Color=Eggshell,Natural, Pine Interior Sash-Panel Color=Eggshell Dual Insulated,Low-E,Produce w/SS Intercept Spacer&Argon Hardware=Shipped with Unit,E-Guard Finish(Beige), Encore,03 Bronze Screen Option.=Full Screen Applied,03 Bronze,Fiberglass Mesh Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial,7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer,2W5H 2025 No Nail Fin 4 11/16" Trim Extender= 1 7/8",Extender Location=Sill Only Rough Opening:21.25" X 62.25" Room Location: 29 Main Flr Front Dining Rm Overall Unit Size:20.75"X 61.75" LINE#1 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 1500-1 2 Aluminum Clad Wood Windows Double Hung Operating 37.46875 x 48.625 32 x 20, Frame Width=37.46875,Frame Height=48.625,Sash Split=50/50 I Complete Unit,DP Rating=Standard Frame Color=Eggshell, AAMA 2604,Natural,Pine Interior Sash-Panel Color=Eggshell Dual Insulated,Low-E, Standard Bead Hardware=Applied, Standard Hardware Type,Oil Rubbed Bronze-FB Jamb Liner Type= PP � yp > Yp � � € Concealed Screen Option=Full Screen Applied,Eggshell,Fiberglass Mesh 37.es675 —, Hurd Divided Lite, Colonial,7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer,3W2H Vinyl Nail Fin,No Drip Cap 6-9/16",Pine Jamb Extension,Natural,Applied,Entire Set Rough Opening:38.21875"X 49.125" Room Location: Kitchen. Overall Unit Size:37.46875"X 48.625" *A,40 awings are viewed from exterior of window. Page 6 Of 14 QUOTE# QUOTE DATE CUSTOMER PO# ORDER PLACED BY DATE REQUESTED 381735 10/6/2010 3328 gostrander 1/1./0001. JOB NAME BID BY TERMS ORDER DATE SHIP DATE 10/6/2010 11/7/2010 LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 1600-t 1 H3 Aluminum Clad Windows Casement Left/Picture/Right 90.5 x 35.5 Unit 1,3: Custom: Frame Width.=23.25, Frame Height=35.5 Unit 2: Custom: Frame Width=44,Frame Height=35.5 , Complete Unit,DP Rating=Standard as- . ' Frame Color=Eggshell,Natural, Pine Interior 311.. Sash-Panel Color=Eggshell Dual Insulated,Low-E Hardware=Shipped with Unit, E-Guard Finish(Beige),Encore,03 Bronze Screen Option =Full Screen Applied,03 Bronze,Fiberglass Mesh Unit 1,3: Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial,7/8", Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer, 2W3H Unit 2: Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial,7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer,4 W3H Integral Rigid Vinyl Nailing Fin 6-9/16",Pine Jamb Extension,Natural, Applied,Entire Set Rough Opening:91" X 36" Room Location: Kitchen Sink Overall Unit Size:90.5"X 35.5" LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 1700-1 2 Aluminum Clad Wood Windows Double Hung Operating 37.46875 x 60.625 32 x 26,Frame Width=37.46875,Frame Height—60.625,Sash Split- 50/50 Complete Unit,DP Rating—Standard Frame Color=Eggshell,AAMA 2604,Natural,Pine Interior Sash-Panel Color=Eggshell Dual Insulated,Low-E, Standard Bead 11, Hardware=Applied, Standard Hardware Type,Oil Rubbed Bronze-FB, Jamb Liner Type= Concealed Screen Option—Full Screen Applied,Eggshell,Fiberglass Mesh Unit 1 Bottom:None Unit 1 Top:Hurd Divided Lite, Colonial,7/8",Eggshell,Natural, Pine Interior,w/spacer, 3W2H Vinyl Nail Fin,No Drip Cap 6-9/16",Pine Jamb Extension,Natural,Applied,Entire Set Rough Opening:38.21.875" X 61.125" Room Location: Kitchen Nook Overall Unit Size:37.46875"X.60.625" *All drawings are viewed from exterior of window. Page 7 Of 14 41 QUOTE# QUOTE DATE CUSTOMER PO# ORDER PLACED BY DATE REQUESTED 381735 10/6/2010 3328 gostrander 1/1/0001 JOB NAME . BID BY TERMS ORDER DATE SHIP DATE 10/6/2010 11/7/2010 LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 1800-1 1 Aluminum Clad Wood Outswing Patio Door Stile And Rail Door Right 30.4375 x 82.5 2-6 x 6-10,Door Panel Width=27.875,Door Panel.Height—80, Frame Width=30.4375, Frame Height=82.5 Complete Unit Frame Color=Eggshell,AAMA 2604,Natural,Pine Interior Sash-Panel Color=Eggshell,4 1/2" Stile, 7 1/2"Bottom Rail,4 1/2"Top Rail, Standard Sill Dual Insulated,Low-E, Standard Bead,Tempered Glass—Yes,both lites Double Bore/No Handle,Oil Rubbed Bronze-FB Hinge Color Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial,7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer,2W5H . 3,43,5 • Vinyl Nail Fin,No Drip Cap 6-9/16", Pine Jamb Extension,Natural,Not Applied,Entire Set Rough Opening:30.9375" X 83" Room Location: Kitchen Nook Overall Unit Size:30.4375"X 82.5" LINE:# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 1900-1 5 Aluminum Clad Wood Sash Pack Kits-Non Hurd Frame Double Hung Operating 36 x 61.75 . Custom: Sash Opening Width=36, Sash Opening Height=61.75, Sash Split=50/50 Complete Sash Kit, Sill Angle=Custom,Custom Sill Angle=7 Frame Color=Eggshell,AAMA 2604,Natural,Pine Interior a n- Sash-Panel Color=Eggshell Dual.Insulated,Low-E, Standard Bead,Produce w/Technoform Spacer&Argon .a� ,r . Standard Hardware Type,Oil Rubbed Bronze-FB,Jamb Liner Type=Concealed Screen Option=Full Screen Shipped Separately,Eggshell,AAMA 2604,Outside Screen 35 Width =36.Outside Screen Height=60.25 Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial,7/8",Eggshell,Natural, Pine Interior,w/spacer,3W2H Rough Opening:36.5" X 62.25" Room Location: 18,19,21,23,24 Main.Fir Living& Study Overall Unit Size:NIAA LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 2000-1 Aluminum Clad Wood Sash Pack Kits-Non Hurd Frame Double Hung Operating 35.75 x 61.75 Custom: Sash Opening Width=35.75,Sash Opening Height=61.75,Sash Split=50/50 l Complete Sash Kit, Sill Angle=Custom, Custom Sill Angle=7 Frame Color=Eggshell,AAMA 2604,Natural,Pine Interior b - Sash-Panel.Color=Eggshell .,ry, Dual Insulated,Low-E,Standard Bead,Produce w/Technoform Spacer&Argon ( ` ` ' Standard Hardware Type,Oil Rubbed Bronze-FB,Jamb Liner Type—Concealed '- Screen Option=Full Screen Shipped Separately,Eggshell,AAMA 2604,Outside Screen Width—36.Outside Screen Height=60.25 Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial,7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer, 3 W2H Rough Opening:36.25"X 62.25" Room Location: 22 Main Fir Living& Window by self Overall Unit Size:N/AA *A 42 awings are viewed from exterior of window. Page 8 Of 14 QUOTE# QUOTE DATE CUSTOMER PO# ORDER PLACED BY DATE REQUESTED 381735 10/6/2010 3328 gostrander 1/1/0001 JOB NAME BID BY TERMS ORDER DATE SHIP DATE 10/6/2010 11/7/2010 LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 2100-1 1 Aluminum Clad Wood Sash Pack Kits-Non Hurd Frame Double Hung Operating 36 x 61.75 9 ~ Custom: Sash Opening Width=36,Sash Opening Height=61.75,Sash Split=50/50 Complete Sash Kit,Sill Angle=Custom,Custom Sill Angle=7 Frame Color=Eggshell, AAMA 2604,Natural,Pine Interior Sash-Panel Color—Eggshell Dual Insulated,Low-E, Standard Bead,Produce w/Technoform.Spacer&Argon Standard Hardware Type, Oil Rubbed Bronze-FB,Jamb Liner Type=Concealed Screen Option=Full Screen Shipped Separately,Eggshell,AAMA 2604,Outside Screen Width=36,Outside Screen Height=60.25 Unit 1 Bottom:None Unit 1 Top:Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial,7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer, 3W2H Rough Opening:36.5"X 62.25" Room Location: 17 Study Overall Unit Size:N/AA LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 2200-1 1 Aluminum Clad Wood Windows Direct Set 41 x 77 Custom: Frame Width=41, Frame Height=77 Complete Unit Frame Color=Eggshell,AAMA 2604,Natural,Pine Interior Dual Insulated,Low-E, Standard Bead,Tempered Glass=Yes,both lites Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial,7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer,4W6H Vinyl Nail Fin,No Drip Cap 4-9/16" Rough Opening:41.75" X 77.5" Room Location: 20 Study Overall Unit Size:41"X 77" LINE':# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 2300-1 3 Aluminum Clad Wood Sash Pack Kits-Non Hurd Frame Double Hung Operating 36 x 61.75 Custom: Sash Opening Width=36,Sash Opening Height=61.75, Sash Split=50/50 Complete Sash Kit, Sill Angle=Custom, Custom Sill Angle=7 Frame Color=Eggshell,AAMA 2604,Natural,Pine Interior Sash-Panel Color=Eggshell Dual Insulated,Low-E, Standard Bead,Produce w/Technoform Spacer&Argon LI Standard Hardware Type,Oil Rubbed Bronze-FB,Jamb Liner Type=Concealed Screen Option=Full Screen Shipped Separately,Eggshell,AAMA 2604,Outside Screen Width=36,Outside Screen Height=60.25 Unit l Bottom:None Unit 1 Top:Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial,7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer, 3W2H Rough Opening:36.5" X 62.25" Room Location: 10,11 Family Overall Unit Size:N/AA *All drawings are viewed from exterior of window. Page 9 Of 14 43 QUOTE# QUOTE DATE CUSTOMER PO# ORDER PLACED BY DATE REQUESTED 381735 10/6/2010 3328 gostrander 1/1/0001 JOB NAME BID BY TERMS ORDER DATE SHIP DATE 10/6/2010 11/7/2010 LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 2400-I l Aluminum Clad Wood Sash Pack Kits-Non Hurd Frame Double Hung Operating 36 x 4 61.75 Custom: Sash Opening Width—36, Sash Opening Height=61.75, Sash Split=50/50 Complete Sash Kit, Sill Angle=Custom,Custom Sill Angle=7 Frame Color=Eggshell,AAMA 2604,Natural,Pine.Interior Sash-Panel Color=Eggshell Dual Insulated,Low-E, Standard Bead, Tempered Glass=Yes, both lites,Produce w/Technoform Spacer&Argon I1 Standard Hardware Type,Oil Rubbed Bronze-FB,Jamb Liner Type=Concealed 315 Screen Option=Full Screen Shipped Separately,Eggshell,AAMA 2604,Outside Screen Width=36,Outside Screen Height=60.25 Unit 1 Bottom:None Unit l Top: Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial,7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer, 3 W2H Rough Opening:36.5" X 62.25" Room Location: 13 Family Overall Unit Size:N/AA LINE'# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 2500-i 1 Aluminum Clad Wood Sash Pack Kits-Non Hurd Frame Double Hung Operating 31 x _ 57.75 Custom: Sash Opening Width=31, Sash Opening Height—57.75, Sash Split=50/50 Complete Sash Kit, Sill Angle=Custom, Custom Sill Angle=7 I Frame Color=Eggshell,AAMA 2604,Natural, Pine Interior Sash-Panel Color=Eggshell Dual Insulated.Low-E, Standard Bead,Produce w/Technoform Spacer&Argon a t Standard Hardware Type.Oil Rubbed Bronze-FB,Jamb Liner Type=Concealed Screen Option=Full Screen Shipped Separately,Eggshell,AAMA 2604, Outside Screen — '3w'" Width—36,Outside Screen Height=60.25 Unit 1 Bottom:None Unit 1 Top:Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial, 7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer, 3W2H Rough Opening:31.5"X 58.25" Room Location: 12 Family Overall Unit Size:N/AA LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 2600-1 2 Aluminum Clad Wood Sash Pack Kits-Non Hurd Frame Double Hung Operating 30 x 45.75 Custom: Sash Opening Width—30, Sash Opening Height=45.75,Sash Split—50/50a, Complete Sash Kit, Sill Angle=Custom,Custom Sill Angle=7 Sash- Color= Color=EggsAAMA 2604,Natural, Pine Interior Eggshell, i Frame -- - Dual Insulated,Low-E, Standard Bead,Produce w/Technoform Spacer&Argon Standard Hardware Type,Oil Rubbed Bronze-FB,Jamb Liner Type=Concealed Screen Option=Full Screen Shipped Separately,Eggshell,AAMA 2604,Outside Screen .30 Width=36,Outside Screen Height=60.25 Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial,7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer,3W2H Rough Opening:30.5"X 46.25" Room Location: 15,16 Garage Overall Unit Size:N/AA *A44.awings are viewed from exterior of window. Page 10 Of 14 QUOTE# QUOTE DATE l CUSTOMER PO# ORDER PLACED BY DATE REQUESTED 381735 10/6/2010 3328 gostrander 1/1/0001 JOB NAME BID BY TERMS '' ORDER DATE ' SHIP DATE 10/6/2010 11/7/2010 LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 2700-1 1 Aluminum Clad Wood Windows Direct Set 31.5 x 85.25 Custom:Frame Width=31.5.Frame Height=85.25 Complete Unit Frame Color=Eggshell,AAMA 2604,Natural,Pine Interior /, Dual Insulated,Low-E,Standard Bead,Tempered Glass—Yes,both lites Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial,7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer, 3W7H Vinyl Nail Fin,No Drip Cap 4-9/16" y, - S15 - Rough Opening:32.25" X 85.75" Room Location: 41 Stairway Overall Unit Size:31.5"X 85.25" LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 2800-1 Aluminum Clad Wood Windows Direct Set 31.5 x 37.5 w Custom:Frame Width=31.5,Frame Height—37.5 Complete Unit Frame Color Eggshell,AAMA 2604,Natural,Pine Interior Dual Insulated, Low-E,Standard Bead,Tempered Glass=Yes,both lites Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial,7/8", Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer,3W3H Vinyl Nail Fin,No Drip Cap 4-9/16" Rough Opening:32.25" X 38" Room Location: 14 Stairway Overall Unit Size:31.5"X 37.5" LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 2900-1 4 Aluminum Clad Wood Sash Pack Kits-Non Hurd Frame Double Hung Operating 36 x 53.5 a . Custom: Sash Opening Width=36, Sash Opening Height=53.5, Sash Split=50/50 Complete Sash Kit, Sill Angle=Custom,Custom Sill Angle=7 , 1 Frame Color=Eggshell,AAMA 2604,Natural,Pine Interior Sash-Panel Color=Eggshell Dual Insulated,Low-E, Standard Bead,Produce w/Technoform Spacer&Argon Standard Hardware Type,Oil Rubbed Bronze-FB,Jamb Liner Type=Concealed y'— Screen Option=Full Screen Shipped Separately,Eggshell,AAMA 2604,Outside Screen 1 Width=36,Outside Screen Height—60.25 3 Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial, 7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer,3W2H Rough Opening:36.5"X 54" Room Location: 31,32,33,34 Exercise Rm. 212 Overall Unit Size:N/AA *All drawings are viewed from exterior of window. Page 1 I Of 14 45 QUOTE# QUOTE DATE CUSTOMER PO# ORDER PLACED BY DATE REQUESTED 381735 I0/6/2010 3328 gostrander 1/1/0001 JOB NAME BID BY TERMS ORDER DATE" SHIP DATE 10/6/2010 11/7/2010 LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 3000-1 5 Aluminum Clad Wood Sash Pack Kits-Non Hurd Frame Double Hung Operating 36 x 53.375 Custom: Sash Opening Width=36,Sash Opening Height=53.375, Sash Split=50/50 Complete Sash Kit,Sill Angle=Custom, Custom Sill Angle=7 ,) Frame Color=Eggshell,AAMA 2604,Natural,Pine Interior Sash-Panel Color—Eggshell Dual Insulated,Low-E, Standard Bead,Produce w/Technoform Spacer&Argon tit I Standard Hardware Type,Oil Rubbed Bronze-FB,Jamb Liner Type—Concealed Screen Option=Full Screen Shipped Separately,Eggshell,AAMA 2604,Outside Screen ` `°'„ Width—36, Outside Screen Height=60.25 Unit 1 Bottom:None Unit I Top:Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial,7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer, 3W2H Rough Opening:36.5" X 53.875" Room Location: 35,36,37,38,40 Stairway, Bed 209 Overall Unit Size:N/AA LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 3100-1 1 H3 Aluminum Clad Windows Casement Left 20.75 x 37.75 Custom: Frame Width=20.75,Frame Height=37.75 f' Complete Unit Frame Color=Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior Sash-Panel Color=Eggshell Dual Insulated,Low-E,Tempered Glass—Yes,both lites,Produce w/Technoform Spacer& Argon Hardware=Shipped with Unit,E-Guard Finish(Beige),Encore,03 Bronze Screen Option=Full Screen Applied,03 Bronze,Fiberglass Mesh - 20.76 Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial,7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer,2W4H No Nail Fin 4 11/16" Trim Extender= 1 7/8",Extender Location—Sill.Only Rough Opening:21.25" X 38.25" Room Location: 39 Bath 208 Overall Unit Size:20.75"X 37.75" *A 46 awings are viewed from exterior of window. Page 12 Of 14 QUOTE# QUOTE DATE CUSTOMER PO# ORDER PLACED BY DATE REQUESTED 381735 I0/6/2010 3328 gostrander 1/1/0001 JOB NAME BID BY TERMS - '' ORDER DATE SHIP DATE I 0/6/2010 11/7/2010 LINE## DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 3200-1 1 H3 Aluminum Clad Windows Casement Right 23.75 x 40.5 _. Custom: Frame Width=23.75,Frame Height 40.5 Complete Unit ', Frame Color—Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior Sash-Panel Color—Eggshell Dual Insulated,Low-E,Tempered Glass—Yes,both liter,Produce w/Technoforrn Spacer& Argon i. Hardware=Shipped with Unit,E-Guard Finish(Beige),Encore,03 Bronze Screen Option=Full Screen Applied,03 Bronze,Fiberglass Mesh .- 23.76 Hurd Divided Lite,Colonial, 7/8",Eggshell,Natural,Pine Interior,w/spacer,2W4H No Nail Fin 4 11/16" Trim Extender= 1 7/8",Extender Location=Sill Only Rough Opening:24.25" X 41" Room Location: 30 Bath 211 Overall Unit Size:23.75"X 40.5" LINE'# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 3300-1 099808 10 099808 CCSE OIL RUBBED-F13 LEVER LOCK Rough Opening: Room Location: None Assigned Overall Unit Size: LINE## DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 3400-1 099811 5 099811 CCSE ENCORE OIL RBD-FB CVR/HANDLE SET L Rough Opening: Room Location: None Assigned Overall Unit Size: *All drawings are viewed from exterior of window. Page 13 Of 14 47 QUOTE# QUOTE DATE CUSTOMER PO# ORDER PLACED BY DATE REQUESTED 381735 10/6/2010 3328 gostrander 1/1/0001 JOB NAME BID BY TERMS ORDER DATE SHIP DATE 10/6/2010 11/7/2010 LINE# DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 3500-1 099812 5 099812 CCSE ENCORE OIL RBD-FB CVR/HANDLE SET R Rough Opening: Room Location: None Assigned Overall Unit Size: LINE DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 3600-1 099810 10 099810 CCSE OIL RBD-FB ESCUTCHEON WiGUARD ,.a,,,, 7 Rough Opening: Room Location: None Assigned Overall Unit Size: PROJECT QUOTE MPI McAuliffe Comments: Wood characteristics may vary due to species of the wood. Material will be wrapped, veneer or solid at Hurd's discretion. Outswing doors will have a complementary or matching species of wood threshold. "Lyptus wood species varies considerably in color;therefore you may see a number of varying shades of wood within the finished window or door product. Hurd will not replace Lyptus product because of varying colors of wood." Hurd offers a variety of wood species produced in combination of solid and veneer-wrapped wood parts that include varying grain patterns. The combination of these items could result in color variations of the finished stained product. The Transcend H3 products do not have a DP rating. If this project requires mulled configurations to be DP rated,please contact a member of your Distributor Service Team to determine mull requirements. To view all tested product including sizes and configurations please go to'www.hurd.com'and locate the Product Performance Guide for the current tested performance data. We Appreciate Your Business! All drawings are viewed from exterior of window. Page 14 Of 14 48 49 50 51 52 NARRATIVE IN SUPPORT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR MAJOR ALTERNATION TO A HISTORIC LANDMARK Applicant: Dennis and Marcie McAuliffe 16827 Scott Court Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Applicant's Representatives: Ball Janik LLP 101 SW Main Street, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97204 Contact: Dana Krawczuk 503-228--2525 dkrawczuk(ZIballjanik.com ' s Phil Chek and Associates ,y�i407 333 South State Street, Suite 132 oc9i,, Te, Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Contact: Phil Chek $!� 0 503-224-4500 phil cr philchek.com Request: Request for approval of a Development Review Permit for a major alteration to a Historic Landmark Subject Property: 1097 Chandler Road Zoning District: R-10 I.INTRODUCTION The McAuliffe family bought the home at 1097 Chandler Road in August 2010. Prior to purchasing the home; the McAuliffe's conducted reasonable due diligence—they worked with a reputable real estate broker with a Lake Oswego-focused practice,reviewed the title of the home, obtained title insurance from a Lake Oswego-based title company, obtained an inspection, and conferred with an experienced Lake Oswego-based architect about the ability to remodel and construct an addition to the home. At no time during this analysis was it revealed that the home at 1097 Chandler Road had been designated as a historic landmark in 1990. Nothing was recorded on their title, none of the real estate professionals involved in the transaction suggested that the home could be subject to historic preservation regulations, and the sellers did not disclose that the property was designated as a historic landmark. The McAuliffe's purchased the home with the intent to update it so that the kitchen and bedrooms were more functional, and to repair some of the deferred maintenance on the home, EXHIBIT F-1 1 ::0D] LU 11-0004 53 such as the inoperable windows. To shorten the amount of time that their family with two small children was displaced from their home because of the remodel, the McAuliffe's purchased the materials for the remodel, including over$55,000 worth of new window sashes. The City's initial review of the remodel plans did not raise any issues. It was only at the time of final building permit review did the McAuliffe's learn from the City about the home's designation as a landmark. Since learning of the designation, the McAuliffe's have worked closely with staff in an effort to ensure that their remodel can be approved. It has been an expensive process, and has resulted in significant delays. From the pre-application meetings related to the project, we understand that the proposal to repair the window sashes by replacing them with the window sashes that have been purchased is not the City's favored approach for the windows. Instead, the City has indicated it prefers either that the existing windows be repaired, or replaced with custom made exact replicas. The sashes that have been purchased are very high quality, in keeping with the craftsmanship of the existing home and proposed remodel. The windows are of superior quality to many of the windows that can be found on historic landmarks around Lake Oswego. The sashes appear identical to the original windows. The aluminum cladding over wood and simulated divided lights in the windows are indistinguishable from the originals. The new sashes are vastly more energy efficient, and do not require the use of unsightly and unsafe storm windows. And, of critical importance to the McAuliffe's, the requirement to use any windows other than the ones already purchased would be an exorbitant expense. Through this application, the McAuliffe's offer three alternative reasons for why the Hurd window sashes that have been purchased should be approved—(1) as repair and maintenance, the window sash replacement is exempt; (2)the sashes, which replicate the appearance of the original windows, will not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the home, and (3) the ESEE analysis shows that the benefit to the community of allowing the replacement window sashes outweighs the benefit to the community of preserving the resource in its present condition. The application also describes how the addition will not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the landmark, and should be approved. II. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL CRITERIA A. Historic Preservation (Chapter 58) There are two components to the project—(1) the new addition; and (2) the maintenance and repair of the existing windows. Each component of the project is discussed separately. Window Sash Background Information Before addressing the criteria, we would like to offer background information about the current status of the windows, why window repair or an exact replica is not feasible, and why the proposed replacement sashes are the best option for the home at 1097 Chandler Road. For the applicants; this is not a hypothetical discussion. When they purchased their home last year, they 54 2 ::ODMA\PCDOCS\PORTLAND\74502615 had no knowledge that it was designated as a historic landmark, and in an effort to expedite the remodel and decrease the amount of time their family was displaced from their home, the McAuliffe's pre-purchased some of the building materials. They determined that new window sashes were needed because the existing windows were decaying and inoperable, which raised serious safety concerns. Additionally, the windows are not energy efficient and are not cohesive aesthetically because of previous remodels. The McAuliffe's purchased high quality windows, which cost $55,614 ($36,570 for replacing the existing windows + $19,044 for sashes in the addition). The windows are being stored in the McAuliffe's home and cannot be returned. The new sashes are wooden, clad in aluminum on the exterior, and will be painted. As double paned, argon-gas filled' windows with simulated dividers? the windows are energy efficient and reduce noise from the street. As shown on the attached photos, the replacement windows are indistinguishable from the original windows. The architect provided the window-maker drawings and measurements of the muntins and panes so that the proportions and configuration of the replacement sashes are identical proportions of the original windows. No alterations to the existing wood window frames are proposed. The sash on the lattice paned leaded glass window on the south (front) elevation over the front door is not being replaced. The broken panes in that window will be repaired. The window sashes that are original to the home have deteriorated and are not operationally sound. Moisture has intruded into the sashes, so most of the sashes are swollen shut and many have water damage. The decayed wood is particularly visible on the sashes in the bedrooms. An example of the condensation that routinely forms on the interior of the windows is shown in the attached photographs. Repair is Infeasible The homeowners have sought expert advice on the feasibility of repairing the existing sashes so that they are operable. All experts reported that some sash replacement was necessary. For the sashes that could be repaired, one approach is to plane down the sashes so that swelling is eliminated, but this would make the windows drafty and even more energy inefficient. Because of the age of the windows, the sashes and frames have lead based paint. When the windows are opened and closed the friction between the sashes and frames creates dust that is hazardous, particularly to the homeowner's small children. The replacement sashes include an inset bronze finished track that allows the windows to open and close easily. The new interior bronze finished track eliminates the risk of creating lead paint dust because of painted wood rubbing against painted wood. The argon gas helps with sun fading and reduces heat gain in the interior or the home during the summer months. The gas is clear and has no tinting, so it does not affect the appearance of the windows. `The high quality simulated divided light("SDL") windows are a vast improvement over early"grid"SDLs, and produce a convincing true divided light effect. The sashes use spacers between the panes of the insulated glass, aligned with three-dimensional muntin bars that are permanently affixed on the interior and exterior glass surface. An example of SDL windows is the pro shop of the Oswego Lake Country Club. 3 ::ODMA\PCDOCS\PORTLAND\745026\5 55 The final reason that repair is infeasible is its expense. The attached chart'compares all of the alternatives. Exact Replicas are Infeasible The homeowners consulted with the small batch custom window companies, Wooddale Windows and Versatile Sash Window and Door, about having new true divided light, energy efficient windows with wooden sashes created. To accommodate an insulated window that meets the required U-value of 35 or less, both companies explained the muntin bars on a true divided light must be widened from the current width of 3/ inch to almost 1.5 inches, and it would have a flatter profile than the original windows. Energy efficiency can be obtained and muntin profiles can be matched with a simulated divided light window. The purchased Hurd sashes are wooden, and clad with aluminum. An alternative is a wood SDL that is not clad. However, these sashes must be primed and painted every 5 years, and are not as durable in the long run as the aluminum clad windows. If the new windows were permitted to be out of compliance with energy standards (i.e., have single paned glass), it may be possible to match the muntin dimensions with a custom made true divided light window. However, storm windows would be required to increase the energy efficiency to a U-value of U40 to U45 (which is in excess of the energy standard). As explained below, the storm windows create emergency egress problems. The final reason that custom sash replacement is infeasible is its expense. The attached chart compares all of the alternatives. Energy Efficiency The existing windows are not energy efficient. The building code requires a U-value of at least U35. Without storm windows, the U-value of the existing windows is between U50 and U60, and with storm windows the U-value is approximately U45. As noted above, to obtain a U35 rating, the muntins on custom made windows would be twice the width of the original windows. To have the muntins be closer in proportion to the existing windows, the U-value would exceed energy standards. Stoini windows would be required to increase the energy efficiency to a U-value of U40 to U45 (which is in excess of the energy standard). The sashes proposed for the project are wooden with a painted clad exterior, double paned with argon gas, with a U-value of U30 or lower.3 No unsightly storm windows are needed. An additional benefit of the proposed sashes is that they will significantly reduce the traffic noise from Chandler Road and Iron Mountain Road, the busy streets and intersection adjacent to the home. 3 Each window is tested individually by the manufacturer for energy efficiency. The U-values on the purchased windows range from U27 to U30. 56 4 ODM A\PCDOCS\PORTLAND\745026\5 Storm Windows Limit Emergency Egress While the homeowners are concerned about energy efficiency and the moisture collected in the home because of the existing sashes, their primary concern is having inoperable windows in the event of a fire. Not only are the sashes inoperable, but storm windows are problematic for fire escape. The existing double hung storm windows have a 2 inch wide horizontal bar separating the lower half from the upper half, which in addition to being aesthetically unpleasing,limits the opening of the storm window for egress. See the attached photographs. Custom wood storm windows could be created with a center hinge that swings up. However, the storm window does not stay in the up position, so would still impede emergency egress for children. Summary The attached chart compares the options of repair and replacement. One balance, the homeowners believe that having operable energy efficient windows that do not impede emergency egress and replicate the muntin profiles is more important to the historical and architectural significance of the home than having unclad wooden window sashes. The proposed windows sashes are high quality, and are superior to the windows that are installed in many properties on the City's Historic Landmark Designation List. The proposed window sashes are consistent the original historic material and appearance, and are either exempt from review as maintenance or repair, or should be approved. Section 58.02.030 Exemptions The following actions are exempt from the provisions of this chapter. 3. Maintenance or repair; Section 58.02.135 Alteration of a Landmark or Contributing Resource I. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the maintenance or repair of a landmark, or of a contributing resource within a district. Maintenance and repair actions include, but are not limited to: f. Replacement of existing sashes with new sashes, when using material which is consistent with the original historic material and appearance; Response Maintenance or repair actions are exempt from Chapter 58 of the Lake Oswego Code (Historic Preservation). Maintenance and repair are defined as including replacing existing sashes with new sashes, when the sash material is consistent with the original historic material and appearance. Therefore, repairing existing window sashes by replacing them is exempt from design review so long as the material is consistent with the original historic material and appearance. It is critical to keep in mind that the criterion does not require a duplication or exact match in materials; consistency with the original sashes is what is required. As detailed below, the replacement sashes appear indistinguishable from the existing sashes, and the proportions of 5 ::ODMA\PCDOCS\PORTLAND\745026\5 57 the muntins and panes are identical to the existing windows. Therefore, the sash replacement is consistent with the original historic material and appearance, so it is a repair action that is exempt from design review. The portion of the project that is a new addition is considered a "major alternation" that is clearly subject to design review, and is discussed below. Concurrent with the new addition, the homeowners desire to repair and maintain the existing home. The element of the home that needs the most attention is the existing window sashes. As detailed above, the condition of the windows clearly indicates that replacement is necessary. Moisture intrusion has deteriorated the sashes, and there is not a feasible alternative to replacement. The homeowners propose repairing the sashes by replacing the existing sashes with sashes that are consistent with the original historic material and appearance. LOC 58.02.135(1)(f). The proposed replacement sashes are wooden with a painted metal clad exterior. The proportions of the muntins and panes are identical to the existing windows. As shown in the attached photographs, other than looking new (i.e., no sloppy paint) and not covered in condensation, the proposed sashes are indistinguishable from the existing sashes. As detailed above, custom windows are incapable of replicating the proportions of the original windows, and are prohibitively expensive. One balance, the homeowners believe that replicating the muntin profiles is more important to the historical and architectural significance of the home than having unclad wooden window sashes. The proposed window sashes are consistent the original historic material and appearance, so the proposed repair of the sashes by replacing them with new sashes should be approved as maintenance and repair of the landmark, which is exempt from design review. Recognizing that the sash replacement is exempt from design review is consistent with several of the purposes statements of the Historic Preservation chapter of the code, especially that "clear procedures and standards" are provided in the code to "insure that the ongoing operation and maintenance of residential...uses are not affected in a manner that jeopardizes the economic viability of such uses" and to "protect private property owners against extraordinary cost occasioned by the application of this chapter." LOC 58.02.010(13) and (14). 3. In order to approve a major alteration of a landmark, the Development Review Commission,for a major development, and the City Manager,for all other development, unless referred to the Historic Resources Advisory Board pursuant to LOC 58.02.025(1)(d), shall find that: a. the proposed alteration will not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the landmark; or, b.for alterations which diminish the historical or architectural significance, through an ESEE analysis, it can be shown that the benefit to the community of allowing the alteration outweighs the benefit to the community of preserving the resource in its present condition. 6 :ODMA\PCDOCS\PORTLAND\745026\5 58 5. The following considerations are to be used as a guide in the granting authority's deliberations: a. The use of the resource, the reasonableness of the proposed alteration, and the relationship of these factors to the public interest in the preservation of the resource, or alterations which diminish the historical or architectural significance may be allowed if through an ESEE analysis, it can be shown that the benefit to the community of allowing the alteration outweighs the benefit to the community of preserving the resource in its present condition; b. The significance of the resource and the community benefit to preserving it; c. The physical condition of the resource; d. The effect of requested changes related to the original exterior design, arrangement, proportion, detail, scale, texture, and/or materials; including the following: (1)Retention of Original Construction: Distinguishing original qualities defining a structure's character shall not be destroyed. Removal or alteration of historic materials or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. (2) Time Period Consistency: Structures shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis or which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be avoided. (3) Visual Integrity/Style: Distinctive stylistic features, such as a line of columns,piers, spandrels, or other primary structural elements, or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a structure, shall be maintained or restored as far as is practicable. (4) Replacement or Addition Materials: Whenever possible, deteriorated architectural features shall be restored rather than replaced. In the event that replacement of an existing feature is necessary, or an addition is proposed, new materials should match those of the original structure, to the extent possible, in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities: (5) Building Height: Existing building heights should be maintained. Alteration of roof pitches shall be avoided. Raising or lowering a structure's permanent elevation when constructing a foundation shall he avoided, except as required by Building Code or flood plain requirements. (6) Horizontal Additions: The scale and proportion of building additions, including the relationship of windows to walls, shall be visually compatible with the traditional architectural character of the historic building. Contemporary construction for alterations and additions are acceptable if the design respects the building's original design and is compatible with the original scale, materials, window and door opening proportions of the structure. 7 ::ODMA\PCDOCS\PORTLAND\745026\5 59 (7) Windows: Window replacements shall match the original windows in materials and appearance. The original number of window panes shall be maintained or restored when replacements are required. (8)Restoration Possible: Except where Building Code precludes it, new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the original structure could be restored. (9)Signs, Lighting: Signs, lighting, and other appurtenances, such as walls,fences, awnings, and landscaping shall he visually compatible with the scale and traditional architectural character of the historic building. e. Pertinent aesthetic factors as identified in Appendix A or the Historic District List of Contributing Resources for the subject property. f Any design guidelines adopted by the Board. Response We understand that the only approval criterion is that the proposed alteration will not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the landmark. In the alternative, if the alteration will diminish the historical or architectural significance of the landmark, it will be approved if the ESEE analysis shows that the benefit to the community of allowing the alteration outweighs the benefit to the community of preserving the resource in its present condition. LOC 58.02.135(3). The "considerations" in LOC 58.02.135(5) are not mandatory approval criteria. Instead, the considerations are intended to "guide" the City's deliberations about if the project diminishes the historical or architectural significance of the landmark and the ESEE analysis. There are two components to the project—(1) the addition to the home; and (2) the maintenance and repair of the existing windows. Each component of the project is discussed separately. (1) New Addition The first floor footprint expansion accommodates the updated kitchen, which includes a breakfast nook and relocating the mudroom. The second floor addition includes a new dormer to provide better access from the top of the stairs and will make the existing bedroom a more functional space. The current access to the bedroom is 21 inches wide, which is not to code, and the stairs are also not to current code. By pushing the dormer out in this area, we can widen the doorway to 30 inches and will eliminate the non-compliant stair and headroom problem. The second floor addition provides the opportunity to enhance the architectural detail on the rear (north) elevation, including the addition of windows, an uncovered deck, Tudor styled half timbering with a stucco finish beneath that reflects the south elevation, a hand crafted stone wall and support timbers. 60 8 ::0DMA\PCDOCS\PORTLAND\74502615 The additions to the home and related facade alterations were designed to be harmonious with the existing home. The architect has done everything possible to match the existing architectural style and materials used on the original house. The architect met with the City a number of times and revised the plans to respond to City's design suggestions. The proportions, materials, design and craftsmanship of the addition are compatible with the character of the original home. For example, all new brick will match the existing brick, and the most prominent features of the home, the polygonal bay and recessed main entrance, are not being altered by the additions. The location of the expanded footprint areas and the large perimeter hedge and mature garden mean that very little of the addition or facade alteration will be visible from any public space (i.e., the street).4 The attached digital renderings compare the "before" and"after" of the front (south) and west (side) elevations; the elevations that are visible from Chandler Road and Iron Mountain Boulevard. The screening created by perimeter landscaping is not shown on the renderings. The addition will not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the landmark, and should be approved. (2) Window Sashes (a) The window sashes will not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the landmark. As discussed above, the maintenance and repair of the existing window sashes is permitted outright by the code, and is not subject to design review. In the alternative,if the City interprets the window maintenance and repair as being a major alteration to the home, then the criteria in LOC 58.02.135(3) are addressed in this application. The proposed window sashes are wooden with a painted metal clad exterior. The proportions of the muntins and panes are identical to the existing windows. As shown in the attached photographs, other than looking new (i.e., no sloppy paint) and not covered in condensation, the proposed sashes are indistinguishable from the existing sashes. No changes to the existing frames arc proposed. The new energy efficient sashes eliminate the need to use unsightly storm windows. The new sashes will not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the landmark. The exclusive source for determining the homes historical and architectural significance is the City of Lake Oswego's Cultural Resources Inventory for the home, which is attached. The historical and architectural emphasis in the inventory is the home's Tudor style of architecture "the subject building is an excellent example of the Tudor style of architecture which was popular in the Oswego vicinity in the 30s and 40s" and "the Van Houten House is significant as a The front of the home is the south elevation,and is the most visible, although it is partially covered by the hedge and garden. The only portion of the addition that will be visible on the south elevation is to the far left(near the garage). The west elevation is the side of the home that faces Iron Mountain Boulevard,and largely obscured by the hedge. The north elevation, which is where the addition is most visible,is the rear of the home,and cannot be seen from any public space. The cast elevation is the side of the home, and faces the interior side lot line, so it cannot be seen from any public space. 9 ::ODMA\PCDOCS\PORTLAND\745026\5 61 fine example of the Tudor style." The window sash material is irrelevant to if the home's Tudor architectural style is diminished.5 When windows are mentioned in the inventory, the emphasis is on the shape and pattern of the windows. The inventory describes the windows as "multi-light double-hung sash and casement many in twos and threes," "multi-light windows" in the full-height polygonal bay(which is also described as a"full-height polygonal window bay [that] is equally noteworthy") and "segmentally arched window w/lattice glass." The materials of the windows are not mentioned anywhere in the inventory. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the shape and pattern of the windows (i.e., the polygonal window, lattice glass and multiple panes) are what are historically and architectural significant to the home. Therefore, because the replacement windows replicate the appearance of the existing windows, the historical and architectural significance of the home is not diminished. This conclusion is supported by the description in the inventory of the rear wing and garage, which were later additions that "do not seriously detract from the historic character of the dwelling." With the addition, there are currently three kinds of window sashes in the home—the original wood sashes, wood sashes that are clad with aluminum on the exterior, and the family room sash is wood with a vinyl clad exterior. Therefore, at the time the home was designated a landmark, the window sash materials were not all wood, but that did not affect the home's designation as a landmark Therefore, the window sash material is not a significant component of the home's historical or architectural value. A survey of other properties listed on the City's Historic Landmark Designation List is illustrative—many include windows that do not appear to be historic, and of a far inferior quality to the sashes proposed for the McAuliffe's home. For example, the windows on the rear elevation of the Oswego Heritage House appear to be vinyl sashes and have no muntins whatsoever. The reasons supporting replacing the existing inoperable window sashes are provided above. Given that replacement is necessary, the choice is between building new custom wooden sashes, or installing the wooden sashes that have a painted metal clad exterior that the homeowners have already purchased. As noted above, custom energy efficient windows cannot be built to exactly replicate the existing windows;the muntins will be wider and flatter, whereas the purchased sashes are exact replicas of the design and proportions of the existing windows. Therefore, the question before the City is which option will avoid diminishing the historical or architectural significance of the landmark, which in terms of windows, is the pattern and shape of the windows —the purchased sashes which are exact replicas of the pattern and shape, or wooden sashes that have a different proportion than the existing windows. The homeowner thinks the former is the obvious preference, and is compliant with the code. Other communities have approved the use of 1-Turd aluminum clad wood windows in historic buildings. For example, when Sioux Falls, SD was renovating the 1908 Washington High School to convert it to the Washington Pavilion of Arts and Sciences in 1999, the City chose the Hurd windows because they matched the appearance of the original wood windows and were virtually maintenance free. Additionally, the "Magic House," a children's museum in St. Louis, 5 The sash on the lattice paned leaded glass window on the south(front)elevation over the front door is not being replaced. The broken panes in that window will be repaired 10 ::ODMAvPCDOCSvPORTLANDv74502615 62 selected Hurd windows. The project required approval of the local Historical Society and was awarded the 2009 Construction Keystone Award by the Associated General Contractors of St. Louis in 1999. Photos of the Washington Pavilion of Arts and Sciences and Magic House are attached. (i) Guidelines The guidelines suggest that there are many elements to the historic and architectural significance of a landmark's exterior design, including arrangement, proportion, detail, scale, texture and materials. LOC 58.02.135(5)(d). The only element that is affected by the proposed sashes is the material,but the painted exterior of the sashes are indistinguishable from the original window sashes. The purchased sash materials do not match the original windows because the exterior of the new sashes are clad in painted metal. In this case, the City must balance the need to use a new material (the purchased sashes) with maintaining the overall aesthetic of the home. While the guideline in LOC 58.02.135(5)(d)(7) indicates that the sash materials shall match the original, this is not an approval criterion. Instead, it is one of several guidelines that should be considered. In this case, the high quality sashes that have been purchased are preferable over new custom- made wooden sashes with wider muntins because the purchased windows' appearance is identical to the existing windows. The visual integrity and style of the home are maintained. LOC 58.02.135(5)(d)(3). The other guidelines indicate that some flexibility with materials is acceptable— LOC 58.02.135(5)(d)(4) describes that replacement materials "should match those of the original structure, to the extent possible, in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities" and LOC 58.02.135(5)(d)(1) does not prohibit removing or altering historic materials; instead it"should be avoided when possible." Emphasis added. The guidelines should be applied consistent with the purposes of the Historic Preservation chapter of the code, especially that the code is intended to "protect private property owners against extraordinary cost occasioned by the application of this chapter" and"encourage complementary [not identical] design and construction impacting historic resources" LOC 58.02.010(14) and (7). Emphasis added. The physical condition of the existing sashes, the infeasibility and extraordinary cost of repairing or creating an exact replica, and the reasonableness of the proposed sashes are detailed above. LOC 58.02.135(5)(a) and (c). A balanced review of the guidelines support the conclusion that the proposed window sashes, which replicate the appearance of the original windows, will not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the home, and should be approved. (b) The ESEE analysis shows that the benefit to the community of allowing the replacement window sashes outweighs the benefit to the community of preserving the resource in its present condition An "ESEE Analysis" is defined by the City as "an evaluation in which the economic, social, environmental and energy consequences to the community of..preserving a historic ... resource are considered and balanced with the community benefit of allowing change ... of the historic ... 11 ::ODMA\PCDOCS\PORTLAND\745026\5 63 resource to a conflicting use." As applied to this application, the ESEE analysis compares allowing the sashes to be replaced with the purchased sashes with requiring the prohibitively expensive and less efficient sash repair or custom sashes. The "impact area" of the ESEE analysis is limited to the McAuliffe's home. The home is not part of a larger historic district, or a cohesive area of historic homes. Therefore, it is inappropriate to expand the impact area beyond 1097 Chandler Road. When balancing the ESEE consequences to the community, the impact on the homeowner is also relevant,particularly in light of ORS 197.772 and the purpose of the Historic Preservation Chapter. One of the purposes of the Historic Preservation Chapter of the code is to "protect private property owners against extraordinary cost occasioned by the application of this chapter." LOC 58.02.010(14). ORS 197.772 was enacted by the Legislature in response to draconian historic preservation regulations that were applied to properties without the owner's consent, and (1) requires a local government to obtain the consent of a property owner prior to designating property historic, and (2) allows property owners to "opt out"of historic preservation programs. ORS 197.722 has balanced a property owner's rights and the benefit to the community from historic designations, and determined that a property owner's rights outweigh the potential benefit to the community. The City's ESEE analysis should not deviate from the Legislature's conclusion, and must consider the cost to the property owner imposed by the code. The ESEE analysis shows that the ESEE benefits to the community and homeowners, particularly the economic, environmental and energy consequences, are greater if the sashes are replaced with the purchased sashes. (i) Economic The economic hardship on the property owner of denying the request to use the purchased window sashes and requiring either repair or custom windows is staggering, and is inconsistent with one of the purposes of the Historic Preservation Chapter of the code, which is to "protect private property owners against extraordinary cost occasioned by the application of this chapter." LOC 58.02.010(14). Emphasis added. Before the McAuliffe's were notified of their home's landmark designation, they spent $55,614 on the Hurd sashes.6 The quotes for repair and replacement options are on the attached chart. However, because $55,614 has already been spent, it is a"sunk cost,"meaning that if any alternative other than the Hurd sashes are required for the home, the cost of that alternative will be in addition to the $55,614 already spent. The sunk cost consideration is in-and-of-itself and "extraordinary cost" that the Historic Preservation chapter seeks to avoid. Additionally, the consequence to the community of the sunk cost + having to spend additional funds on one of the sash alternatives is the homeowner has less money available to spend in the community. There are no financial benefits, such as property tax incentives, associated with being on the City's Historic Landmark Designation List. We have learned that there is a stigma among buyers related to properties that are designated as landmarks. For example, the home located at 16847 Greenbrier Road is designated as a Historic Landmark, and recently a qualified buyer terminated negotiations on purchasing the home when they learned of the designation. If the 6$36,570 for replacing the existing windows+$19,044 for sashes in the addition. 64 1 2 ::ODMA\PCDOCS\PORTLAND\745026\5 reasonable sash replacement is not allowed, the stigma will be worse, and it could have a chilling effect on other property owners rehabilitating (or potential property owners from purchasing) homes on the City's Historic Landmark Designation List because it is prohibitively expensive. Already deteriorated properties will continue to decline,property values will decreased, and the City's tax base will be reduced. These outcomes are inconsistent with the purpose statements of the Historic Preservation chapter of the code, which arc directed at fostering community and neighborhood pride, strengthening the economy of the City, enhancing property value, and avoiding jeopardizing the economic viability of historic structures. LOC 58.02.010(2), (4), (8) and (13). However, if the high quality sash replacement is allowed, designation has a historic landmark could be considered less of a stigma, and property owners could be incentivized to update their homes. Property values would increase and employment opportunities related to remodeling would be created. These outcomes are consistent with the purposes statements of the Historic Preservation chapter of the code. (ii) Social There are obvious social benefits of preserving historic resources. However, as ORS 197.772 indicates, there are limits on the reasonableness of historic preservation regulation, and property owners should be able to opt out. The limits on the reasonableness of historic preservation regulation are also acknowledged in the purpose statement for the Historic Preservation Chapter of the code, which is to "protect private property owners against extraordinary cost occasioned by the application of this chapter." LOC 58.02.010(14). Emphasis The requested window sash replacement is part of a high quality update of a single family residential home. The proposed sashes differ from the original windows only in material (the addition of metal clad on wood); a difference that is indiscernible. If there is a social benefit to requiring the retention of wooden sashes, it is de minimis. The social value is further reduced by the need to use storm windows, which obscure the detailed windows and create egress problems. As noted above, if the reasonable window sash replacement is not allowed and the rehabilitation of historic landmarks is chilled, then the resulting deferred maintenance and declining stock of historic homes would have negative social effects. These outcomes are inconsistent with the purpose statements of the .Historic Preservation chapter of the code, which are directed at fostering community and neighborhood pride, strengthening the economy of the City, enhancing property value, and avoiding jeopardizing the economic viability of historic structures. LOC 58.02.010(2), (4), (8) and (13). Repairing the existing sashes could lead to the release of lead paint dust, exposing the small children in the home to a known poison that cases developmental delay and other health problems. 13 ::ODMA\PCDOCS\PORTLAND\745026\5 65 (iii) Environmental and Energy The replacement sashes have already been purchased, constructed and delivered. The sashes were built to the specifications of the McAuliffe's home, so if they cannot be used they will likely be disposed of, which has negative environmental and energy consequences for the community. Another significant negative environmental and energy consequence of not installing the purchased replacement sashes is the alternatives are considerably less energy efficient. See the chart comparing energy efficiencies of the alternatives. The City has recognized the importance of increasing energy efficiency through its comprehensive plan (Goal 13: Energy Conservation) and enforcement of the Oregon Residential Energy Code. (3) Historic Preservation Conclusion The additions to the home and related facade alterations were designed to be harmonious with the existing home, and are focused on portions of the home that are not visible from the street. The additions will not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the home, and should be approved. The window sash replacement is exempt from design review as maintenance and repair because the proposed window sashes are consistent the original historic material and appearance. In the alternative, because the proposed window sashes replicate the appearance of the original windows,they will not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the home, and should be approved. Additionally, the ESEE analysis shows that the ESEE benefits to the community and homeowners, particularly the economic, environmental and energy consequences, are greater if the sashes are replaced with the purchased sashes. B. Community Development Code Article 50.08 Residential — Low Density Section 50.08.030 Yard Setbacks Pursuant to LOC Table 50.08.030 the following setback standards apply in the R-10 zone: Front Yard: 25 feet Street Side Yard: 20 feet,for side yard adjacent to neighborhood collector Side Yard: 10 feet for portions of the structure < 18 feet in height 15 feet for portions of the structure > 18 feet in height Rear Yard: 30 feet Response: As depicted on Sheet S 1.0, the home exceeds all setback standards. 66 14 ::ODMA\PCDOCS\PORTLAND\745026\5 Section 50.08.035 Height of Structures Pursuant to LOC Table 50.08.035, a primary structure in the R-10 zone shall not exceed a maximum base height of 30 feet. _ Response: At its highest point, the home is approximately 27 feet, 2 inches feet in height, in compliance with the maximum base height standard. Section 50.08.040 Lot Coverage Pursuant to LOC Table 50.08.040, 25% is the maximum lot coverage in the R-10 zone for a structure that is between 27 and 28 feet in height. Res o se: The lot is approximately 27,335 square feet, so the applicable maximum lot coverage is 6,834 square feet. The total lot coverage of the remodeled home and existing shed is significantly less than the maximum allowed by the code. The remodeled home's footprint is 2,806 square feet (excluding the 525 square foot attached garage footprint) and the footprint of the existing shed is 245 square feet. See site plan at Sheet S 1.0. Section 50.08.042 Maximum Floor Area Pursuant to LOC Table 50.08.042, the maximum floor area for a dwelling in the R-10 zone is based upon the following calculation: 3000 square feet + [(actual lot size—5800 square feet)x 0.19J + 750 square feet for a residential unit providing a garage. Response: The lot is approximately 27,335 square feet, and the home includes a garage. Therefore, the maximum floor area is 7,842 square feet [3,000 + [(27,335 — 5,800)x 0.19] + 750 = 7,842]. The "floor area"of the remodeled home (including the garage and excluding the basement) is 4,951 square feet, in compliance with the maximum floor area standard. The 245 square foot shed is an accessory building that is not habitable,' so does not count towards the maximum floor area standard. Section 50.08.045 Structure Design 1. Street Front Setback Plane Even if the 245 square feet shed was considered habitable, the remodeled home would still meet the criterion because up to 400 square feet of habitable areas within an accessory structure is exempt from floor area calculations. LOC 50.08.042(3)(b). 1 5 ::ODMA\PCDOCS\PORTLAND\745026\5 67 a. Except as set forth in LOC 50.08.045 (1)(c), the profile of a structure that fronts on a street shall fit behind a plane that starts at the setback line.(front yard or side yard abutting a street) and extends upward to 20 feet in height, then slopes toward the center of the lot up to the maximum allowed height at the highest point of the roof, as illustrated in LOC Appendix 50.07-C. The slope of the street front setback plane is dependent upon whether it applies to a front yard or side yard abutting a street, as follows: i. Front yard— 6:12 slope, ii. Side yard abutting a street-- 12:12 slope. 2. Side Yard Setback Plane--Interior Yards a. Except as set forth in section (c) below, the side profile of a structure shall fit behind a plane that starts at the side property line and extends upward to 12 feet and slopes toward the center of the lot at a slope of 12:12 up to the maximum allowed height at the peak as illustrated in LOC Appendix 50.07-E. Response: As depicted on the site plan, the remodeled home fits behind the required front and side (street and interior) setback planes. 3. Side Yard Appearance and Screening At least one of the following design treatments shall be applied along side yards or side elevations. This section is applicable to both interior side yards and side yards that abut streets. b. Treatment 2 - Side Yard Features. i. The side elevation of a structure shall consist of two or more planes that are offset by a minimum of 16 inches. The wall planes shall be a minimum of 4 feet in width, and shall result in a change in a wall plane for one full story. Response The subject site is on a corner. The west elevation of the home is the side elevation that faces the side street, and the east elevation is an interior side yard elevation. The addition of the west elevation introduces a new dormer and enlarged window; design treatments that minimize the appearance of bulk. Compare sheets A1.0 and A2.O. The west elevation is comprised of three planes, which are over 4 feet in width and are offset by more than 16 inches, in compliance with "Treatment 2." LOC 50.08.045(3)(b). The remodel to the rear-facing north elevation includes a second floor addition that is supported in part by exposed beams and a hand crafted stone wall; design treatments that add articulation 68 16 ::ODM \P ACDOCS\PORTLAND\745026\5 and minimize the appearance of bulk. The profile of the addition can be seen from the interior side yard facing east elevation. Compare sheets A 1.1 and A2.1. The east elevation is comprised of four planes, which are over 4 feet in width and are offset by more than 16 inches, in compliance with "Treatment 2." LOC 50.08.045(3)(b). Section 50.08.055 Garage Appearance and Location 1. The following standards apply, except when a garage is located behind the primary structure or the garage is side or rear loading, as shown in Appendix 50.02-C: a. The garage shall: i. Not be located closer to the street than the dwelling, unless the exception criteria outlined in subsection (c) below are met. For the purpose of meeting this standard, the exterior wall of at least one room of habitable space, other than any habitable space above the garage, shall be located closer to the street than the garage door. Habitable space above a garage shall be considered an acceptable method of meeting this standard for remodeling projects involving homes built prior to August 2004. Response The existing home was built prior to August 2004, and the existing garage has habitable space located above the garage. No change to the existing garage appearance and location arc proposed, so this criterion does not apply. If the criterion'did apply, it is satisfied by the habitable space above the garage. C. Development Standards Article 40.40 Drainage Standard for Ministerial and Minor Development Section 50.40.010 Standards for Approval(Drainage Standard for Minor Development) Drainage Pattern Alteration. Development shall be conducted in such a manner that alterations of drainage patterns (streams, ditches, swales, and surface runoff) do not adversely affect other property. Response The addition will expand the footprint of the home by 730 square feet. All new roof drains will be connected to the existing drainage system. Because any increase in stormwater caused by the increase in impervious surface will handled by an approved drainage system, there will be no alteration of drainage patterns and other properties will not be affected. 17 :ODMA\PCDOCS\PORTLAND\745026\5 69 Section 50.40.015 Standards for Construction Response The scale of the addition does not require the construction of a new detention or retention area, so the standards in LOC 50.40.015 and 50.41,025 are not applicable. Section 50.40.020 Standards for Maintenance 1. Same as for LOC 50.41.03, which states: Maintenance. All detention or retention areas shall be properly maintained by the owner such that they do not become nuisances. Nuisance conditions shall include: improper storage resulting in uncontrolled runoff and overflow; stagnant water with concomitant algae growth, insect breeding, and odors; discarded debris; and safety hazards created by the facility's operation. Storm water storage areas shall be designed with sufficient access to allow adequate, safe and efficient maintenance as determined by the City Manager. Response The scale of the addition does not require the construction of a new detention or retention area, so the standards in LOC 50.40.015 and 50.41.025 are not applicable. 2. Site Discharge. Where conditions permit, individual lots shall be developed to maximize the amount of storm water runoff which is percolated into the soil and to minimize direct overland runoff into streets, drainage systems, and/or adjoining property. Storm water runofffrom roofs and other impervious surfaces should be diverted into swales terraces, and/or water percolation devices on the lot when possible. Response The addition will expand the footprint of the home by 730 square feet. All new roof drains will be connected to the existing drainage system. Because any increase in stonnwater caused by the increase in impervious surface will handled by an approved drainage system, there will be no alteration of drainage patterns and other properties will not be affected. Section 50.40.030 Procedures The applicant shall submit the following information: 1. General Information. Information concerning clearing, grading, vegetation preservation and drainage improvements. 70 18 ::ODMA\PCDOCS\PORTLAND\745026\5 Response The addition does not require clearing, grading or tree or vegetation preservation. The small kitchen/dormer addition is 6 feet wide, and is adjacent to the garage. The new drain lines will be tied to the existing rain drains. On the rear of the house, a new covered porch and second floor bedroom/bathroom expansion is proposed. This new roof drains for this portion of the addition will also tie to the existing rain drains. 2. Hydraulic Characteristics. When a watercourse is present on the site, information regarding its hydraulic characteristics shall be submitted. Response There is not a watercourse on site. Article 50.55 Parking Standards Section 50.55.010 Standards for Approval 1. Vehicle Parking: a. Required parking spaces shall be available for the parking of operable passenger vehicles of residents, customers,patrons and employees and shall not be used for the storage of vehicles or materials or for the loading and unloading or parking of vehicles used in conducting the business or use. b. Number of Required Parking Spaces: i. Refer to Appendix 50.55-A to determine the number of parking spaces required. The number of parking spaces specified for each type of use are the minimum standards. Fractional space requirements shall be counted as the next highest whole space. Appendix 50.55-A requires 1 space per dwelling unit for single-family dwellings c. On-Site Location of Required Parking Spaces: i. All required parking shall be off street. Parking may not be located in a required yard or special street setback. Response Off-street Parking for the home is provided in the existing three car garage, in compliance with these criteria. f Parking Dimensions: 1 9 ::ODMA\PCDOCS\PORTLAND\745026\5 71 i. Refer to Appendix 50.55-B to determine the minimum dimension and layout of parking spaces. ii. The minimum dimension to meet single family residential parking space requirements shall be 8 feet 6 inches wide and 18 feet 6 inches long for each space. Response The parking spaces in the existing garage are not being modified, so it is unlikely that these criteria are applicable. The three parking spaces in the 28'-2" wide x 20'-2" long existing garage exceed the minimum parking space dimensional requirements. Section 50.55.015 Standards for Construction 1. The surface of the parking and maneuvering area shall be constructed as a durable surface. The use of gravel in low use areas, such as church parking lots, recreational vehicle storage in a residential zone or outside equipment storage or fleet vehicles in industrial zones, may be approved, so long as the gravel is contained, the parking area is clearly defined, and where grade permits. Refer to LOC 50.58.020 (6)for additional paving surface specifications. Response The existing driveway is paved with a combination of concrete and cobblestone, and is not being modified. Section 50.55.020 Procedures Applicant shall provide scaled parking plan with dimensions and number of spaces accurately depicted. Response The Proposed Floor Plan at sheet A3.O depicts the existing garage. 72 20 ::oDMATCDOCSTORTLANDv745o26v5 Article 50.57 Access Section 50.57.015 Standards for Approval 1. Every lot shall abut a street for a width of at least 25 feet. Exception: The street frontage of a lot created pursuant to approval of a row house development may be reduced to 17 feet in the R-0, D-D, R-2, R-3 and R-5 zones. 2. Access design shall be based on the following five criteria: a. Topography. b. Traffic volume to be generated by the development. c. Classification of the public street from which the access is taken (residential, collector or arterial). d. Traffic volume presently carried by such street. e. Projected traffic volumes. 3. Direct permanent access from a development to an arterial street is prohibited where an alternate access is either available or is expected to be available. A temporary access may be allowed. 4. Direct access from a development or a structure to a residential street is required unless such access is not available. 5. The City may require shared access with a neighboring site or an extension of residential streets across adjacent properties to provide access to the development if necessary to prevent adverse impacts on traffic flow. b. If no satisfactory access from a public street to a development is available, the City shall require postponement of the development until such time as a satisfactory access becomes available. Section 50.57.020 Standards for Construction Access Access lanes shall meet the following minimum standards: • i. 20 foot wide easement. Section 50.57.030 Procedures Determination of the location and configuration of an access shall be based on a traffic study, unless otherwise approved by the City Manager. Response 21 ::ODMA\PCDOCS\POR1I AND\745026\5 73 The corner lot abuts two public residential streets for more than 25 feet. No new lots are being created. The existing home has a driveway that directly accesses a public residential street. No change to the design of the existing access is proposed. Therefore, LOC 50.57.020 and 50.57.030 are not applicable. Article 50.64 Utility Standard Section 50.64.015 Standards for Approval 1. Utilities Required. The following utilities, whether on or off site, shall be provided to all development in the City of Lake Oswego, in accordance with City engineering division's policies, design standards, technical specifications and standard details: a. Sanitary sewer systems b. Water distribution systems c. Sidewalks and any special pedestrian ways and bicycle paths d. Street name signs e. Traffic control signs and devices f Street lights, which shall be served from an underground source of power g. Underground utility and service facilities, as required h. Streets i. Provision for underground T.V. cable The City Manager may require that utility designs be prepared by a registered engineer. 2. Easements or right-of-way for utilities and associated and related facilities shall be provided by the property owner. Easements for anticipated future utilities or extensions may be required by the City Manager. 3. Sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve the development and to connect the development to existing mains. 4. Design shall take into account the capacity and grade to allow for desirable future extension beyond the development, and where required by the City Manager, extended to the upstream property line to allow for such future extension. 5. All sanitary sewers and appurtenant structures shall be designed and constructed in conformance with City Engineering Division's policies, design standards, technical specifications and standard details, and shall include, but not be limited to, such items as: a. Pipe size and materials b. Manholes c. Cleanouts d. Backfill requirements e. Service laterals 74 22 ::ODMA\PCDOCS\PORTLAND\745026\5 b. All development shall be served by service lines, main water lines and fire hydrants which are connected to City mains or the water mains of water districts which provide service within the City. 7. Design of water system improvements shall take into account provision for extension beyond the development to adequately grid or loop the City system. 8. One water service line shall be provided to each lot in a development, or if the development does not include lots, to each building in the development. Each structure with plumbing shall connect to the water system. The system shall be designed to supply fire flow requirements ofLOC Chapter 45. Response The existing home is connected to all required utilities. The proposed remodel will connect underground to all required utilities. As part of the remodel, the power lines are being relocated to access the home underground from the northwest corner of the lot. The existing overhead phone and cable lines are proposed to be relocated to the northwest corner of the lot, and will be underground. A new water line will also likely be installed because we expect that the existing galvanized line is undersized. No changes to the existing gas line are proposed. The surrounding properties are fully developed and served by utilities, so no extension of utilities or utilities easements are needed. Section 50.64.020 Standards for Construction 1. Utility easement widths shall be the minimum width possible to facilitate utility installation and maintenance, and shall be a minimum of 10 feet (5 feet on each side) in width on easements not adjacent to a street right-of-way. 2. Utility construction within easements shall minimize disturbance to existing conditions, especially trees and other vegetation. 3. Any disturbed areas within easements shall be restored to a condition similar to the condition prior to construction, including the replacement of plants of similar species as those removed or damaged. Replacement trees shall be of similar species and be a minimum of 11/2 inches caliper. 4. Utilities Shall be Installed Underground. Utilities shall be installed underground (unless exempted by the City Manager). a. Specific exemptions are as follows: i. Developments which need multi phase voltages or high KVA demands may develop with pad transformers where underground transformers are not feasible. Pad mounted transformers shall be buffered from sight by landscaping or other suitable methods. 23 ::ODMA1PCDOCSvPOR'TLANDv745026v5 75 ii. Pad mounted transformers are allowed in major single-family developments, but shall be buffered from sight by landscaping or other suitable methods. iii. Above ground telephone and cable television junction boxes are allowed. 5. Sanitary Sewers. Capacity, grade and materials shall be as approved by the City Manager. Minimum size shall be 8 inch diameter with 6 inch diameter allowed at the terminus of a sewer line. 6. All sanitary sewers and appurtenant structures shall be designed and constructed in conformance with City Engineering Division's policies, design standards, technical specifications and standard details, and shall include, but not be limited to, such items as; a. Pipe size and materials b. Manholes c. Cleanouts d. Backfill requirements e. Service laterals 7. Service Laterals. One service lateral shall be provided to each lot in a development, or if the development does not include lots, to each occupied building in the development. 8. Design, including materials, size and location of water mains, service lines, valves and hydrants, shall be in accordance with City Engineering Division's policies, design standards, technical specifications and standard details and be approved by the City Manager. Hydrants shall be a located at intersections and at intervals of no more than 500 feet from intersections in major developments with the exception that multi family units shall locate a hydrant within 500 feet of residential buildings. For major or minor partitions which create a new lot or lots, a hydrant shall be no farther than 1,000 feet from any of the lots. 9. All facilities as described in this section shall be constructed in compliance with the rules and regulations of the City Manager, and the rules and regulations of the Public Utility Commissioner of the State relating to the installation and safety of underground lines,plant, system, equipment and apparatus. Response The existing home is connected to all required utilities. The proposed remodel will connect underground to all required utilities. As part of the remodel, the power lines are being relocated to access the home underground from the northwest corner of the lot. The existing overhead phone and cable lines arc proposed to be relocated to the northwest corner of the lot, and will be underground. A new water line will also likely be installed because we expect that the existing galvanized line is undersized. No changes to the existing gas line are proposed. The surrounding properties are fully developed and served by utilities, so no extension of utilities or 76 24 ::ODMA\PCOOCS\PORTLAND\745026\5 utilities easements are needed. The standards for connecting utilities will be addressed during Building Permit review. Section 50.64.030 Procedures 1. A scaled utility plan of existing and proposed utilities shall be furnished to the City as part of any major development plan application and shall include at least the following at 1" _ 100'scale. Response The scaled utility plan is provided at Sheet S 1.0. 2. Easements shall be recorded in the final plat or plan to serve the development and each lot therein. Res onse No new easements for the development are anticipated. D. Other Ordinances Chapter 38 Utilities Response The standards for connecting utilities will be addressed during Building Permit review. Chapter 55 Trees Section 55.08.020 Tree Protection Plan Required Section 55.08.030 Tree Protection Measures Required Response No trees will be removed as part of the addition. A Tree Protection Plan that includes required tree protection measures will be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of Building Peiinits, 2 5 ::ODM A\PCDOCS\PORTLAND\745026\5 77 Chapter 57 Solar Access Section 57.06.060 Solar Site Plan Required An applicant for a building permit for a structure subject to LOC 57.06.050 - 57.06.090 shall submit a site plan that shows the maximum shade point height allowed under LOC 57.06.065 and the allowed shade on the proposed structure's solar features as provided in LOC 57.06.080. If applicable, the site plan also shall show the solar balance point for the structure as provided in LOC 57.06.085. Response The solar site plan is attached at Sheet S2.0. Section 57.06.065 Maximum Shade Point height Standard The height of the shade point shall comply with either subsection I or 2 below. 1. Basic Requirement. The height of the shade point shall be less than or equal to the height specified in Table A or computed using the following formula. If necessary interpolate between the 5 foot dimensions listed in Table A. Provided, the maximum allowed height of the shade point may be increased one foot above the amount calculated using the formula or Table A for each foot that the average grade at the rear property line exceeds the average grade at the front property line. 2. Performance Option. The proposed structure, or applicable non-exempt vegetation, will shade not more than 20 percent of the south facing glazing of existing habitable structure(s), or, where applicable, the proposed structure or non-exempt vegetation comply with LOC 57.04.020 (2) or (3). If LOC 57.04.020 (2), Protected Solar building Line, is used, non-exempt trees and the shade point of structures shall be set back from the protected solar building line 2.5 feet for every one (1)foot of height of the structure or of the mature height of non-exempt vegetation over (2) two feet. Response As depicted on Sheet S2.0, the existing and new structural elements of the home are compliant with the maximum shade point height standard (45.77'). III. CONCLUSION The additions are focus on portions of the home that are not visible to the street, and compatible with the architectural style of the existing home. The additions should be approved because they comply with all dimensional standards and will not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the home. 26 :ODM ATCDOCS\NOR"17_,A N D\745026\5 The window sash replacement is exempt from design review as maintenance and repair because the proposed window sashes are consistent the original historic material and appearance. In the alternative, because the proposed window sashes replicate the appearance of the original windows, they will not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the home, and should be approved. Additionally, the ESEE analysis shows that the ESEE benefits to the community and homeowners, particularly the economic, environmental and energy consequences, are greater if the sashes are replaced with the purchased sashes. Requiring the use of any windows other than the ones already purchased would be an exorbitant expense, and there would be little benefit because the Hurd windows appear indistinguishable from the original windows. 27 ..ODMAvFCDOCSvPORTLANDv745026v5 79 80 }• ,f en `rt..- O LAKE J EGO E yfA o to 0 vs�,rnunit Deve pnen� Dept. z b „ir: x 0 p) tn U 3 b o A . 3 - 0 " bA o eci •EA cOi d Q _, o +� '5 A 0 O o co O rl O ;� o 'i t) 3 : CD V Q. CAc , 0 3 24 o Qi C vs i� .� 'C v sJ�• C w _ TS •ett O 3 0 b o 0 V' •-0 ai -d i.- c) ->7° -ti 78 °o — o •3 3 o b 0to ¢+ a) aai o y uE .y0 E � 074 y W0 ' 3 Rci," m N 0 3 z v + 0 C.) y o '$ 0 a) O a • U • • • • • 44 b y a�i 3 o at II `ter' a 0 CU N to cl >C .�i CC C ar en In cG j r/1 q N ay ..� } N (71 O o 0 z to.2g , ; � g3 0 y50 Q w aC 05 o ,� v) ° •3 0b 18 g 5 w B 0 V 3 ,°� 3 0 01 o •I 4: ° cd 3 0 Pei "n M `` 3 • -0 b y 8'" a3i a3i o •o ts . to E 0 cn a:: 614 a)0 `D . o 1-10 0 °' "O�y o w° `ot" o - a0i ct ^csb 0 o .7 O O cd O ill .44O ~ O O 0 .-i '_' O g g b0 p .� bA O 0Eg) O lam- In h U .--1 . = ai in 00 v 0 ,ri.. M II N N 'n LI eN+i t, U o " 5 69 EH b4 6A y} ,,� M O O ti O 0 Cr) 0 d ."fir ff! o .E • • • • 6A cC I I EIS 0 U -o 15 it O +- S °. Q O E D a) a) O , rn ct as o H - 3 bn a o glia) ct o f 0-�] 4 ' A 3 CA �4 v' fir ✓ rn Q 3 a r ni y EXHIBIT F-2 LU 11-0004 81 2 a cc! en a) n tF-I _ z o U F� Ties op H o a, '0 O X -- a) ,0 o a) -ci0 a� a) E 0 $ ou E ¢ O U O .5 cl m O o 0 v' o .-, e 3 H sue.. V co b -0Q '3 ,� o 0 -I „ `orit 3 0 ° „, � � c K �°• -°d �' o 0 7:30 n Pi Q o •E o t H• �d E man 3 3 a� 5 0 a on `� a d G O �+ U fi _y °��cen o 3 ,'3 ~eu won 0 i O 0 0 'o z •� � � � 0 N a • ° t-, - c '° 0 3 .c cn b -d 0 o 'os 'tE O^ O M , ;El cl 0 n 0 cd cc) ;- 30 'd O 94 cd cd d 0 -d > 2 3 0 v II Cs a.) •- 6 ,a 7 ao a) 3 •en va r) °; Ny a3 ° 3 -° ct �,cd a, .5 t' b 3 g g a — � C 8 .5 O 8 GI o . i ° 'r' 3 3 •0 40 3 0 [a!� • m 33 o oa ° -.. . w Ao . o o a . -O — . wn oo • H3 o0b „, t� oo H o c " — g g ,sU ..0 un U cr, N O a) 006 ,0 3 O � 5M9 `o a� m N7:3 sg u &4 U ER II ® :d r%� W II e'3 v ° -L 93 o .,. • • • • 3 • • • VI v 0 p as I b °� ° rt a)cn o ,� : •aiom �a78 'oc �j 2 �rQU cd W ,g CgF-1 3 o., @ cnr) 3 sn, 82 / $ \ q \ \ \ \ cn 0 ƒ } as 10 e # ./ \ k - Q '? 2 • o ƒ 0 ƒ ƒ / 0 \ # g 8 up / K 7 c \ ) .R o g / / o P . . . . . •§ , $ 2 f •§ / u - ci m Vol '1:; (ID 0 ca 2 § 6 co) / § \ ƒ% % Ti, § / ? ƒ.§ & 71'4- $ 0 k $ k 3 2 6 69 hic 2 k . , 7 ± ,./) w g g § ? 9 ° ( § a .E •0 ea- ) Q A u LC 3 / d / % % \ 83 N en en •D til z d E. 0 a U 8 O P 0 En Vo U 3 ^C '8 '8 Oes .• Q) •~ y, ,� bA b ® 3 3 $1 �'" •Fd I ' 50 O cn O •O O O "' U k ., cr + a. = °' v • •,i 8 I° &g 3 sm., 8., 3 0 on v, to o •--. -o 0 •a o O aE w O Z w Z p w z ® O P4 x w . . • U . w . • • • • an 1 En En Ed 0 o - En Cl � � �° zoo c° .� 3 i •o Q.4 E o a o 04 E 7) •� b N o a� — Ki o 3 •P 3ED a) p y a . � .t 0In 5- cn o M ." p.c,' 1-i N 0) O O C.) o r cS 00 i-i O 4 ty 00 "d�'+ U In b U F1i un Cu .. • • • • bA cd •,-=, • • O 04 R Q 'C O Q O •; -8 CAEn En 3 0 O a) rnas o o 'b o U uaa 3 �, x a via 3 s '°o -FA 84 co eo 0 N. r 7,4 Co el us cc ' 4 0 � a_ £ £ £ : 0 di, e c g� 0Lu a ea a to o C qt co co co co co eo co CO E e 0 a w 0.,. a.- ® E Ili Imm Q 'v ® 3 0 OS e2. ,..� ® 0 Et 0 0 .Iz _i R e 0, d w a = ; su ifi r 3 ® ; hlu Lv r R @. w E 6 U) is eb en EL 0 U3 4*� : 0. M N It ® .r as us N 5 : to — U) 0n � 0Q . EE� �coe ULLO W 0 � � cn c) E3 73 0 � _ o �p � ,t 0 Y `n l— 3 ti (1) 0 14 co co UH � � a- a til Eoen 'o ' 0 ees gal re Ere eA en ` a a v ,a 2 0 W x . m ®.� s i�a iv cv iu t d*a Aa sxa css us o ® L. .. an ro ea 0 co a, rv- 60 'c0 60 0 co am CD e0 w- s_if = .w. C 0 a ev E x N x x cs x cae x w MI Eti sc � emenet 0, —tfiuse �y � x ® � � � � � ® � E JD a CA < e, elv > Jzos e' �e+> � 0 cam0 cr0 e•' 0 "10 C as ' 0 1 111 � ao U` O0 I ov , c ti r— 1... 132 C 4 zur. 00 C Nco 0 5 A cm ® 2 to ^- 0 9 O E m as 0 s 0 0 Cst U ILLCi 0 -.Ir co m u. X v) 0 c0 Z CO0 m r I a I re 1 e° i `e 1 n I co I 85 .I �.�, g mm .4 0 , ... _. , .fri m. T r,» ' Pt% IV _ m._ r S ° � K .. p , E '.4 i .r.; ...5 , 1 i ''''1'„ CO I% r4 &jai —i § 6 N tiJ , Pd ci:1flq5 " _ 1 3 is 0 gn -.' rt v. its 0 0 at(9 W i G. , U,e -.1 ta go 1cc Fm 1 E' Pl u2 ® j r versa gi 9 0 x . r-- a ce� _ e i q ' nt 0 je 0 t ,Ns 9C, }� x tm x Ike.- x t ;CEF ',' , ' y ii al 0 Cr& CO 1 1 n , .2�c). 4- }i- II 1 < m .., _, it /'''' ]''''' � ��z a I�9 Cb I i ca 8 Ste- c 49 RRR ® s 2L 86 SI SASH DOOR r !y r'{ i�Gverrii er i8,20100 RE_ACEMFjT Phil Chek MCA'JLIFFE PROJECT WNDDWAND,; q 420 Iron Mountain Dlvd Lake Oswego,OR 87035 ULAFTSMEN 505-224-4500 SHO1 RID'A4 PROPO5AL 2ND FLOOR 1N$flx The proposal includes all materials required to complete the installation of product listed.All job site debris is hauled away. Installation is guaranteed to meet the THE I .JLIVENAIIOON manufacturers'specifications so that all warranties are in force. BuniNG Project Detail& The windows quoted are Marvin Ultimate series Casement and Double-Hung with t'ne Cr E following options: CVG Fir window frames and sash spur rA> - Low E 306 glass with Argon Gas Retractable screens for casements- Full exterior screens for double-hung. Oil Rubbed 3ronze finish for all hardware AND TAV Or,, -Tall bottom rails for all casement sash to match original profiles, 7/8"Divided lite be-with spacers to match existing divided lite patterns. MAILING ADDRESS Replacermetrw Windows:The replacement part of the project provides for the full r_D.Box 70392 installation of new windows into the existing frames. Painting or staining by others. POKT AND,Q:ECON New ketnodeled Openings;The windows for remodeled areas (Master bedroom- Kitchen etc.) provides for window products only delivered to the job site.Installation 47296 by others. FOR1LAND PHONE. Rep'...acerrlent Project Dining Room 503•227•0202 Furnish &Install:5- 21 X 62 Insert Casement 2w Sh (4-Operable.:1 -Fixed). $9,024.00 ,\/.S.NCL'UVES.FH:5NE Living Room 360 693-6340 Furnish &install:4- 36 X 62 Insert Double-Hung.3w 2h each sash. FAX 503.233 1867 V WW,CLASSfCSASH.CD A 87 3 $7,240.00 Study Furnish &Install:2 36 X 62 Insert Double-Hung 3w 2h each sash;1 -4-2 X?a Insert Picture Sash 4w 6h -Tempered, $5,285.00 Family Room Furnish&Install:5-35 X 66 Insert Double-Hung 3w 2h each sash. (1 - unit includes new rough opening and frame to mull with existing 2-wide assembly per plan). $10,557.00 bedroom (206) Furnish &lnsteli:5- 21 X 51 Insert Casement 2w 4h (4- Operable;1- Fixed). $5,299.00 Master Closet Furnish & Install:2-21 X 35 insert Casement 2w 5h. $3,126,00 bath (208) Furnish& install: 2-21 X 36 Insert Casement 2w 5h. $3,125.00 tearoom (209) Furnish&Install:4 -36 X 54 insert Double-Hung 3w 2h each sash, $6,964-.00 Exercise Room Furnish&Install:4-36 X 54-Insert Double-Hung 3w 2h each sash. $0,954-.00 bath (205) Furnish&Install:2- 24-X 42 Insert Casement 2w 3h. $3,315.00 Vaulted Area above Study Furnish&Install:1 -24 X 54 Picture Sash 3w 4h. $1,621.00 Total Cost for Replacement Froject: $55,762.00 Remodeled Areas-Product Only Furnish Only: (Master bedroom)3- 38 X 56 Ultimate Double-Hung 3w 2h each sash. (Master bath)3-25 X 37 Ultimate Double-Hung 3w 2h each sash -Tempered. 88 (Multi--Purpose loom)2-38 X 64 Ultimate Double-Hung 3w 2h each sash. (Kitchen)2 -36 X 45 Ultimate Pouble-Hung 3w 2h each sash;I -Casement 3 wide Assembly per plan. (Breakfast l;oorn bench) 2- 36 X 63 Picture Sash 3w 6h. (Stair Landing -to new deck)1 -32 X 54 Picture Sash 3w 711. Total Cost Product Only:$20,668.00 Our Payment it 'errs a. Upon your acceptance of our proposal, a deposit of 1/3 of the total project cost is reiu i red. ba On the day the installation i5 complete the remaining balance i5 due.Note: Occasionally a few loose ends may be left on a job (Le.,a latch on back order,a screen installation still pending). In such cases,the balance we present for payment will not include those items.These will be billed separately when they are completed. Classic Sash &Door accepts checks,Visa, Mastercard and American Express. Workma?ishi'p Guarantee We are proud of our craftsmanship and stand behind all our projects.The installation is guaranteed to meet manufacturer's specifications so that all product warranties are in force. If an issue arises during the two years following installation, Classic Sash &Door will work to repair or replace the defects at no charge.After the two year period we will continue to service all projects however a service fee may be • charged. Woo: Oregon License#54268.All carpenters are covered with Workers Compensation Insurance. Accepted 3y. Order pate: Homeowner Received 5y: Cate: Classic lash&Door 89 90 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY FIELD FORM 1988-1989 . HIST. NAME: Van Houten, C.B., House STYLE: Tudor Revival DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: c. 1939 RESOURCE TYPE: COMMON NAME: Building ORIGINAL USE: Residence THEME: Architecture ADDRESS: 1097 Chandler Road ADDITION: Forest OWNER: Blessing, David R. Hills #4 PRESENT USE: Residence BLOCK: ARCH./BLDR.: Unknown LOT: 205 T/R/S: 2S IE 3CD QUAD: Lake Oswego TAX LOT: 5700 LOT SIZE: .60 ZONE: R-10 PLAN TYPE/SHAPE: Asymmetrical NO. OF STORIES: 1 1/2 FOUNDATION MATERIAL: Concrete BASEMENT: Yes ROOF FORM & MATERIALS: Multiple hip and gable w/ jerkinhead and wood shingles WALL CONSTRUCTION: Masonry STRUCTURAL FRAME: Stud PRIMARY WINDOW TYPE: Multi-light double-hung sash and casement many in twos and threes EXTERIOR SURFACING MATERIALS: Combed brick; horizontal lap siding in gable ends and second floor of rear ell and garage DECORATIVE FEATURES: Full-height polygonal bay w/ sided gable end, half-timbered spandrel and multi- light windows; recessed entrance w/ coffered ceiling and wide, molded-paneled door w/ small, stained glass light; decorative handle; crank door bell; polygonal, molded-paneled balcony; segmentally arched opening w/ soldier pattern surrounds and segmentally arched window w/ lattice glass OTHER: Hipped dormer, rear elevation; multi-light doors; attached garage w/ overhead doors CONDITION: Good EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS/ADDITIONS: Rear ell appears to be addition NOTEWORTHY LANDSCAPE FEATURES: Large grassy yard w/ mature Douglas fir at-southwest corner of house; brick patio w/ bird bath, hedge along drive and garage, ornamental plantings including informal garden in rear yard; outdoor fireplace; arbor; brick paths ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES: Shed w/ gable roof and horizontal siding SETTING: Located on northwest corner of Iron Mountain Boulevard and Chandler Road ,in area of large, early to mid 20th century residences on irregularly shaped lots NOTES: RECORDER(S):Koler/Morrison; MacDonald DATE: January, 1989 SHPO #: FIELD #: EXHIBIT F-3 LU 11-0004 91 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY ADDRESS 1097 CHANDLER ROAD TAXMAP/LOT 2S 1E 3CD/5700 SHPO# ROLL/FRAME# :7:6", --*:_','7-t --,7-71--;it-2,4*;...6. sh:Tel'' t t,,. 's : .. ` ,,,,: « 1 , ,":'-7.tit.t":.7,.,....:,-,L.-,.4,76,- ' ,y '� • r .ter,k Y 4yn Y c 4�• + Z d. Y .�-c+ ` arc- -_ita4. �,. ' ��. ,... ,_ : , .,... — .....,,,,,- , u•-,c-c,,,,,sr+.1. le,....„_.......: .„. . _ ,,, ,. ., ,, _____,., _ _„ _..,..,.. -.,_. . .., ...„...-..„ ....,„„...,..„ ,___,,.,. , ._., .....,___,„,„. ... . _ _ - _-„,-- -,:. ..,..- _ ':--.,-1'71,-k.4:..,"....7Z-',:,:-.L= et. ."..%.;7-7"..7.--,1-7t.':.q- ` _'.., may-=. ,,+^`'i' f 3 -5Z A '". d X4},;'7 d'.''"'i`C ..r ya " d_. y if } -- illtliat 1:-.t '= 4Afilir .„., r Ft- 1: L J N-1 t+-,,,,.. L+ 1\ . • 92 Address: 1097 Chandler Road Historic Name: Van Houten, C.B., House (attrib.) G. Wiley and Carrie A. Cook purchased this property from Oregon Iron and Steel in 1923. Eight years liter the Cooks sold the property to C.B. and Rose Van Houten. The Van Houtens sold it in 1941 to Bruce and Helen Jones. Bruce Jones, a physician and surgeon, appears at this address in the 1947-48 Clackamas County Directory. The Van Houtens are believed to be the original owners of the house, although the date of construction is unknown. The current owners believe that the Jones' were the original owners. The subject building is an excellent example of the Tudor style of architecture which was popular in the Oswego vicinity in the 30s and 40s.The recessed main-entrance which is surmounted by a molded, paneled balcony is particularly distinctive. The half-timber, full-height polygonal window bay is equally noteworthy. The rear wing and garage appear to be later additions, however, they do not seriously detract from the historic character of the dwelling. The house is highly visible, due in part to the landscaping which is more restrained then some of the nearby residences. The Forest Hills neighborhood was subdivided and developed with the construction of the Country Club and exhibits a cohesiveness in terms of landscape features and buildings. The Van Houten House is significant as a fine example of the Tudor style. The dwelling also contributes to the historic character of the Forest Hills neighborhood. Bibliography: Clackamas County Directory 1947-1948. Ticor Title Company, Oregon City, OR. 93 94 �,AKF Fire Marshal's Office F D r E Memorandum R P P.O. Box 369 E T Lake Oswego, OR 97034 OSwEG,O 503 635-0275 Zoutendi j kci.oswego.or.us To: Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner From: Gert Zoutendijk, Deputy Fire Marshal Date: October 6, 2010 Subject: PA 10-0064, 1097 Chandler Road Plans Received Date: September 30, 2010 ACCESS Access is adequate for emergency vehicles. WATER FLOW FOR FIRE PROTECTION Hydrant location and water flow for fire protection are adequate. EXHIBIT F-4 LU 11-0004 95 96 ^..4 Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program w,�E 4. '' Technical Preservation Services National Park Service Replacement Windows that Meet the Standards The decision-making process for selecting replacement windows divides into two tracks depending on whether historic windows remain in place or no historic windows survive. Replacement of Existing Historic Windows When historic windows exist, they should be repaired when possible. When they are too deteriorated to repair, selection of the replacement windows must be guided by Standard 6. Design, visual qualities, and materials are specific criteria provided by the Standard that are pertinent to evaluating the match of a replacement window. Evaluating the adequacy of the match of the replacement window involves the consideration of multiple issues. How accurate does the match need to be? The more important a window is in defining the historic character of a building the more critical it is to have a close match for its replacement. Location is a key factor in two ways. It is usually a consideration in determining the relative importance of a building's various parts. For example,the street-facing facade is likely to be more important than an obscured rear elevation. The more important the elevation, feature or space of which the window is a part,the more important the window is likely to be, and thus,the more critical that its replacement be a very accurate match. Secondly, the location of the window can affect how much of the window's features and details are visible. This will affect the nature of an acceptable replacement. For example, windows at or near ground level present a different case from windows in the upper stories of a tall building. Using the hierarchy of a building's features and taking into account the window's visibility, some general guidance can be drawn: • Replacement windows on primary, street-facing or any highly visible elevations of buildings of three stories or less must match the historic windows in all their details and in material (wood for wood and metal for metal). • Replacement windows on the primary, street-facing or any highly visible elevations that are part of the base of high-rise buildings must match the historic windows in all their details and in material (wood for wood and metal for metal). The base may vary in the number of stories, but is generally defined by massing or architectural detailing. • Replacement windows on the primary, street-facing or highly visible elevations of tall buildings above a distinct base must match the historic windows in size, design and all details that can be perceived from ground level. Substitute materials can be considered to the extent that they do not compromise other important visual qualities. EXHIBIT F-5 LU 11-0004 97 • Replacement windows on secondary elevations that have limited visibility must match the historic windows in size, configuration and general characteristics,though finer details may not need to be duplicated and substitute materials may be considered • Replacement windows whose interior components are a significant part of the interior historic finishes must have interior profiles and finishes that are compatible with the surrounding historic materials. However, in most cases, the match of the exterior of a replacement window will take precedence over the interior appearance. • Replacement windows in buildings or parts of buildings that do not fit into any of the above categories must generally match the historic windows in all their details and in material (wood for wood and metal for metal). Variations in the details and the use of substitute materials can be considered in individual cases where these differences result in only minimal change to the appearance of the window and in no change to the historic character of the overall building. How well does the new window need to match the old? The evaluation of the match of a replacement window depends primarily on its visual qualities. Dimensions, profiles, finish, and placement are all perceived in relative terms. For example, an eighth of an inch variation in the size of an element that measures a few inches across may be imperceptible, yet it could be more noticeable on the appearance of an element that is only half an inch in size. The depth of a muntin or the relative complexity of a brick mold profile are more often made visually apparent through the shadows they create. Thus, while comparable drawings are the typical basis for evaluating a replacement window, a three-dimensional sample or mock-up provides the most definitive test of an effective visual match. The way a historic window operates is an important factor in its design and appearance. A replacement window, however, need not operate in the same manner as the historic window or need not operate at all as long as the change in operation does not change the form and appearance of the window to the point that it does not match the historic window or otherwise impair the appearance and character of the building. Factors to consider in evaluating the match of a replacement window: • Window unit placement in relation to the wall plane;the degree to which the window is recessed into the wall. o The location of the window affects the three-dimensional appearance of the wall. • Window frame size and shape. For example, with a wood window,this would include the brick mold, blind stop, and sill. o The specific profile of the brick mold is usually less critical than its overall complexity and general shape, such as stepped or curved. o Typical sight lines reduce the importance of the size and profile of the sill on windows high above ground level, especially when the windows are deeply set in the wall. o Though a blind stop is a small element of the overall window assembly, it is a noticeable part of the frame profile and it is an important part of the transition between wall and glass. 2 98 o Steel windows that were installed as a building's walls were constructed have so little of their outer frame exposed that any replacement window will necessitate some addition to this dimension, but it must be minimal. • Glass size and divisions. o Muntins reproduced as simulated divided lights—consisting of a three-dimensional exterior grid, between-the-glass spacers,and an interior grid—may provide an adequate match when the dimensions and profile of the exterior grid are equivalent to the historic muntin and the grid is permanently affixed tight to the glass. • Sash elements width and depth.For example with a wood window,this would include the rails, stiles and muntins; with a steel window, this would include the operator frame and muntins. o The depth of the sash in a double-hung window, or its thickness, affects the depth of the offset at the meeting rail of a hung window. This depth is perceived through the shadow that it creates. o Because of its small size, even slight differences in the dimension of a muntin will have a noticeable effect on the overall character of a window. Shape, as well as depth, is important to the visual effect of a muntin. o The stiles of double-hung historic windows align vertically and are the same width at the upper and lower sashes. The use of single-hung windows as replacements may alter this relationship with varying effects on the appearance of a window. In particular, when the distinction between the frame and the sash is blurred, details such as lugs may be impossible to accurately reproduce. o Meeting rails of historic windows were sometimes too narrow to be structurally sound. Reproducing a structurally-inadequate condition is not required. o The operating sash of a steel window is usually wider than the overall muntin grid of the window. In addition, the frame of the operating sash often has slight projections or overlaps that vary from the profile of the surrounding muntins. The shadow lines the muntins create add another important layer to the three-dimensional appearance of the window. • Materials and finish. o While it may be theoretically possible to match all the significant characteristics of a historic window in a substitute material, in actuality,finish,profiles, dimensions and details are all affected by a change in material. o In addition to the surface characteristics, vinyl-clad or enameled aluminum-clad windows may have joints in the cladding that can make them look very different from a painted wood window. o Secondary window elements that do not match the finish or color of the window can also diminish the match. Examples include white vinyl tracks on dark-painted wood windows or wide,black, glazing gaskets on white aluminum windows. 3 99 • Glass characteristics. o Insulated glass is generally acceptable for new windows as long as it does not compromise other important aspects of the match. o The clarity and reflectivity of standard clear window glass are significant characteristics of most windows. Because these characteristics are often diminished for old glass, new glass equivalent to the original should be the basis for evaluating the glazing proposed for new windows. Color should only be a noticeable characteristic of the new glass where it was historically, and any coating added must not perceptibly increase the reflectivity of the glass. o Where the glazing is predominantly obscure glass, it may be replaced with clear glass, but some evidence of the historic glazing must be retained, either in parts of windows or in selected window units. Replacement Windows Where No Historic Windows Remain Replacement windows for missing or non-historic windows must be compatible with the historic appearance and character of the building. Although replacement windows may be based on physical or pictorial documentation, if available, recreation of the missing historic windows is not required to meet the Standards. Replacement of missing or non-historic windows must, however, always fill the original window openings and must be compatible with the overall historic character of the building. The general type of window— industrial steel, wood double-hung, etc.—that is appropriate can usually be determined from the proportions of the openings. and the period and historic function of the building. The appearance of the replacement windows must be consistent with the general characteristics of a historic window of the type and period, but need not replicate the missing historic window. In many cases,this may be accomplished using substitute materials. There may be some additional flexibility with regard to the details of windows on secondary elevations that are not highly visible, consistent with the approach outlined for replacing existing historic windows. Replacing existing incompatible, non-historic windows with similarly incompatible new windows does not meet the Standards. December 2007 4 100 Hastay, Johanna From: Holwerda5@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 5:28 PM To: Espe, Paul; Hastay, Johanna; mcguire15@hevanet.com; tim@mcmbuild.com Subject: Official Additional Comments by HRAB on 1097 Chandler Road Application Johanna- Here are our additional comments: We believe that the comments that were made previously by HRAB about the extra Tudor ornamentation, etc., have been taken into account by the owner and contractors, by what we have seen. We are very happy about that and appreciate the willingness to listen to feedback on those issues. We have tried to be accommodating of the new owners' desires for a larger kitchen even though it changes the street elevation and roof line. The remaining concerns for HRAB at this time are the brick matching and the windows. HRAB believes that the brick must be matching. We had requested a sample of matching brick before the brick work is demolished to ensure a good match, but that has not been provided, which is a concern. As for the windows, HRAB is advocates following guidelines set by the National Trust for Historic Preservation (the preeminent group for historic preservation and landmark protection). In protecting our landmarks, we believe that whenever possible, original windows should be preserved or if that is not possible, they should be replicated or repaired with original materials. Below you will find three links. The first talks about window replacement in general in historic buildings. The second is a technical assistance link (with several links for issues relating to windows) and the last link is the specific information about window replacement from the National Trust. It specifically notes that replacement windows on street or primary elevations of buildings must be of the same material as the original windows (here wood), although the secondary elevations (back of the house) may have a change in materials. The last link below on Evaluating Historic Windows for Repair or Replacement notes two things that are of a primary concern to HRAB members with the new Hurd windows that the applicants are suggesting. We are particularly concerned with the change of material (to clad windows from wood) and the character of the glass in the replacement windows (the original glass has a wavy quality, and the new glass does not). You can click on the last link to see these excerpts in their original context. "- Materials and finish. o While it may be theoretically possible to match all the significant characteristics of a historic window in a substitute material, in actuality, finish, profiles, dimensions and details are all affected by a change in material. o In addition to the surface characteristics, vinyl-clad or enameled aluminum-clad windows may have joints in the cladding that can make them look very different from a painted wood window." ". Glass characteristics. o Insulated glass is generally acceptable for new windows as long as it does not compromise other important aspects of the match. o The clarity and reflectivity of standard clear window glass are significant characteristics of most windows. Because these characteristics are often diminished for old glass, new glass equivalent to the original should be the basis for evaluating the glazing proposed for new windows. Color should only be a noticeable characteristic of the new glass where it was historically, and any coating added must not perceptibly increase the reflectivity of the glass.". Click here: http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/weatherization/windows/additional- resources/nthp windows repair replace.pdf Click here: Historic Preservation Tax Incentives, Technical Preservation Services, NPS Click here: http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/tax/download/windows replacement.pdf HRAB would advise that the windows on the primary elevations of the home remain wood but for the secondary elevations the Hurd windows would be acceptable. There are many ways to make the original windows more energy efficient and the benefits of retaining the original character outweigh the disadvantages. It is unfortunate that the Hurd i EXHIBIT G-200 LU 11-0004 101 windows were ordered, but using them would set a precedent that windows in city landmarks can be replaced without consideration of National Trust guidelines. Sincerely, Kasey Holwerda and Tim Mather HRAB 2 102