HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-11-05 - Historic Landmarks Commission Agenda
AGENDA
HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 5, 2018, 5:30 PM
BARNES SAWYER ROOMS
DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER
1300 NW WALL STREET BEND, OR, 97703
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is
accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible, please call the ADA
Coordinator at (541) 617-4747.
117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 | P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
(541) 388-6575 cdd@deschutes .org www.deschutes.org/cd
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
I. CALL TO ORDER
Meeting Packet - Zechariah Heck, Associate Planner
II. MEETING MINUTES
III. PUBLIC COMMENTS
IV. PUBLIC HEARING: 247-18-000658-HS
V. COMMISSIONER / STAFF COMMENTS
VI. ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 29, 2018
TO: Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commission
FROM: Zechariah Heck, Associate Planner
RE: Overview of the November 5, 2018, Historic Landmarks Meeting
I. MINUTES
The Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) will review, edit as necessary, and approve the October 1, 2018
meeting minutes. While HLC meetings are video and audio recorded for the public to review on Deschutes
County’s public meeting website portal, it is important to have a written record of the key points made in
a meeting. Attachment 1 contains the draft minutes.
II. FALL TOUR OF SOUTH COUNTY HISTORIC SITES
The HLC’s fall tour focuses on several sites in south Deschutes County. The tour schedule is provided in
Attachment 2. The first site is the Vandevert Homestead House, which was established in 1892. The family
history throughout the region spans well over 100 years. The second stop will be at the Ed and Genevieve
Deedon Homestead, which contains five one-story buildings constructed between 1914 and 1915. The third
stop will be the Paulina Lake I.O.O.F. Organization camp cabins. The cabins are being restored by the US
Forest Service. The cabins were constructed during the depression era by amateur builders and represent
Oregon’s recreational history. If time permits, we will stop by the Paulina Lake Guard Station, which was
built by the Civilian Conservation Corps.
III. DINNER DISCUSSION
Once we arrive back at the CDD office, dinner will be served to the HLC. After dinner, staff would like to
engage the HLC in a discussion covering the following topics and more.
Upcoming historic preservation opportunities;
Sustaining the HLC’s culture of making educated and well-reasoned decisions with integrity,
professionalism, respect and inclusivity;
Possible projects to fund with future CLG funds;
Identifying areas for trainings, improvements in processes, communications, etc.
Packet Pg. 2 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
IV. PUBLIC HEARING ON FILE NO. 247-18-000658-HS
The Planning Division has received an application to alter the exterior of a historic building, the Vandevert
Homestead House. Due to the extent of the alterations, the HLC will review the proposal and make a
determination if the applicant can proceed with the proposal. In Attachment 3, staff provided the relevant
application materials to the HLC to review. Additionally, Attachment 4 is a staff report highlighting the
review criteria. There are specific criteria where the HLC will need to make findings on the application’s
compatibility with the requirements. To aid the HLC in making such findings, staff included a matrix of
possible outcomes for the HLC to consider.
V. HOUSE BILL 3012 – HISTORIC ADU AMENDMENTS
House Bill 3012 passed in 2017, authorizing—but not requiring—counties to allow a historic home located
in a rural residential exception area to be converted to an accessory dwelling unit and a new single family
dwelling to be constructed on the same lot or parcel. As described in the bill, the definition of “historic”
means simply that the home was constructed in 1945 or before—not that the property is a designated Goal
5 resource. The language in the bill is permissive, i.e., “A county may allow construction of a new single-
family dwelling”.
Staff determined approximately 113 parcels in Deschutes County fall under the criteria of 1) being located
in the MUA or RR-10 zoning districts; 2) property is two acres or more; and 3) property is built before 1946.
Further, research has indicated several counties have adopted amendments pertaining to HB 3012. Some
have adopted the amendments as is, and others have added additional conditions of approval.
Staff will be discussing the possibility of adopting HB 3012 locally with the Board of County Commissioners
during a work session on November 5. Because the possible text amendment relates to historic
preservation, staff wanted to bring this item to the HLC’s attention. During the HLC meeting, staff can
provide an update.
Attachments:
1. Meeting Minutes, October 1, 2018
2. Fall Tour Schedule
3. File no. 247-18-000658-HS – Application Materials
4. File no. 247-18-000658-HS – Staff Report
Packet Pg. 3 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 | P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
(541) 388-6575 cdd@deschutes .org www.deschutes.org/cd
DRAFT MINUTES
DESCHUTES COUNTY HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION
DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER
1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701
OCTOBER 1, 2018 – 5:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Horting-Jones called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Historic Landmark
Commissioners present were Sharon Leighty, Rachel Stemach, Dennis Schmidlng (via
telephone), Bill Olsen, and Kelly Madden. Staff present were Nick Lelack, CDD Director,
Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager, and Zechariah Heck, Associate Planner.
II.PAST MEETING MINUTES
Chair Horting-Jones asked for the meeting minutes of May 14 to clarify that she recused
herself during the nomination review of the central Oregon Canal. Commissioner Olsen
motioned for the minutes to be approved as amended. All were in favor.
The May 29, 2018 meeting minutes were approved as drafted. All were in favor, besides
Commissioner Olsen who abstained because he was not present.
III. CENTRAL OREGON CANAL NOMINATION (WARD RD TO GOSNEY RD SECTION)
Chair Horting-Jones recused herself from review of the nomination and removed herself
from the dais. Commissioner Stemach resumed the role as acting chair.
Staff called Jason Allen from the State Historic Preservation Office to hear an overview of
the latest changes to the nomination. Mr. Allen explained how the nomination was now
included as part of the COID Multiple Property Document (MPD) in order to address a
mitigation requirement.
The commissioners opened the floor for public comments. Pat Kliewer, nomination
preparer, and Craig Horrell, COID Manager, came forward to provide testimony. They
explained how the nomination has changed and that they are now in agreement in how
to proceed.
The commissioners debated how to respond to the request for comments on the canal. It
was ultimately decided the HLC would issue the following statement:
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
Page 2 of 2
The HLC accepts the revised nomination of the Central Oregon Canal, Ward Road to
Gosney Road section, to the National Register of Historic Places. It is agreed by the
commission that we accept the proposal based on letters from the nomination preparer
and the Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID), dated October 1, 2018, expressing
agreement of the nomination under the Multiple Property Document (MPD). Further, we
recommend this recommendation be presented to the Board of County Commissioners
in support of this nomination request.
The entire commission directed staff to submit the aforementioned statement to the
Board of County Commissioners, the State Historic Preservation Office and the State
Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation.
IV. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS
Chair Horting-Jones announced that October is Archeology Month and explained there
will be a series of lectures held at Smith Rock State Park.
Commissioner Madden suggested the commission take a south county tour to several
historic landmarks. All commissioners expressed interest in participating in a tour and
directed staff to organize a tour.
Staff provided a summary of the 2017-18 CLG grant cycle and suggested the commission
consider future projects to fund with CLG during the November 5 meeting. Staff also
announced the state will hold a CLG work shop on November 16 in Independence, OR.
Lastly, staff reminded the commission that Chapter 2.28 of the county code requires the
HLC to provide an annual report to the Board of County Commissioners. Staff explained
they will work with commissioners to provide the annual report in 2019. Chair Horting-
Jones asked to the report, once it is finalized, to be uploaded to the county’s website.
The commissioners had a short discussion on May Preservation month.
V. ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Zechariah Heck, Associate Planner
Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 | P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
(541) 388-6575 cdd@deschutes.org www.deschutes.org/cd
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
HLC – TOUR AND MEETING SCHEDULE
NOVEMBER 5, 2018
12:00 PM Depart from CDD Office
Arrive before 11:50 AM to organize carpool. 117 NW Lafayette Ave,
Bend
12:30 PM – 1:15 PM Stop 1: Vandevert Homestead House
Site visit for file no. 247-18-000658-HS. 17600 Vandevert Road,
Sunriver
1:35 PM – 2:00 PM Stop 2: Deedon Homestead
Possible CLG project (landmark in need of
repair).
15600 Deedon Road, La
Pine
2:35 PM – 3:30 PM Stop 3: Paulina Lake Cabins and, if time
allows, Paulina Lake Guard Station
Site visit of active restoration project.
No Address – Near Paula
Lake; Forest Service
Road 21
4:15 PM – 5:30 PM Dinner at CDD Office
Discussion on site Visits, HLC. 117 NW Lafayette Ave,
Bend
5:30 PM – TBD File No. 247-18-000658-HS Public Hearing
HLC to review a proposal to alter the
Vandevert Homestead House.
117 NW Lafayette Ave,
Bend
Note: this schedule is subject to change. Please contact Zechariah Heck, 541-385-1704 or
Zechariah.heck@deschutes.org, for the latest information.
ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
1
Secretary of Interiors ‘Standards & Guidelines for Rehabilitation’
RE: 17600 Vandervert Rd. Bend OR, 97707
Tax Lot #: 20-11-18-DO-13800
Applicant: Jeffrey Klein, Klein Architecture
70 SW Century Dr. 186-100
Bend OR. 97702
jeff@kleinarchitecture.com
541-419-3561
Owner: Scott Olson
17600 Vandervert Rd. Bend OR, 97707
206-856-1235
Relevant Sections: STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION & GUIDELINES
FOR REHABILITATING HISTORIC BUILDINGS
Relevant Pages: 76, 77, 78, 79, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 98, 99, 102, 106, 110, 121, 123, 124, 137,
142, 157
Page Number, Section, Burden of Proof:
Pg: 76. (Standards for Rehabilitation) Deteriorated historic features will be repaired
rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive
feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
Response: Around 1990 the Original ‘Old Homestead Cabin’ was replaced with a Replica
Cabin as the original structure had significantly deteriorated due to the lack of a supporting
foundation. Though similar in size and scale, this replica included a new Garage Structure
with a Flat Roof Deck above. This element was not part of the original structure.
One of the southern exterior load bearing walls of this replica Cabin is failing due to
improper waterproofing of the flat roofed Garage structure. Due to severe rot within a
significant portion of logs, this wall is no longer structurally sound and cannot be repaired
with conventional methods. The nature of corner stacked log wall construction prohibits us
from replacing the original logs with new logs and restacking them in a similar
configuration. The Structural Engineer, Rolf Armstrong from Eclipse Engineering
recommends replacing these logs with conventional wood framing. Once rebuilt, we are
proposing to clad this wall in faux logs to be scribed around the adjacent log walls to replicate
the existing character.
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
2
Pg: 77. (Identify, Retain, and Preserve Historic Materials and Features) The
guidance for the treatment Rehabilitation begins with recommendations to identify the form
and detailing of those architectural materials and features that are important in defining the
building’s historic character and which must be retained to preserve that character. Therefore,
guidance on identifying, retaining, and preserving character-defining features is always
given first.
Response: In order to ensure the continued viability of the Homestead Cabin, the existing
Garage structure with Roof Deck above must be removed and replaced. This structure, as
currently designed, sheds stormwater runoff towards the exterior loadbearing log walls rather
than away from it. We are proposing replacing this Garage/ Roof Deck with a Sunroom which
retains the existing scale, proportion and character of the existing structure. Above this
Sunroom, we are keeping the existing Roof Deck including both Newel Posts and Rail designs.
Pg: 77. (Replace Deteriorated Historic Materials and Features) the missing feature
is character defining or if it is critical to the survival of the building (e.g., a roof), it should be replaced
to match the historic feature based on physical or his-Following repair in the hierarchy,
Rehabilitation guidance is provided for replacing an entire character-defining feature with new
material because the level of deterioration or damage of materials precludes repair. If historic
documentation of its form and detailing. As with repair, the preferred option is always replacement
of the entire feature in kind (i.e., with the same material, such as wood for wood). However, when
this is not feasible, a compatible substitute material that can reproduce the overall appearance of the
historic material may be considered.
Response: Due to the nature of stacked log construction and the deteriorated state of the
existing logs, the only option is to replace this load bearing element with standard wood
framing and clad this with faux logs. We will scribe these faux logs to blend with the
surrounding logs to the best state possible.
Pg: 78. (Alterations) Some exterior and interior alterations to a historic building are generally
needed as part of a Rehabilitation project to ensure its continued use, but it is most important that
such alterations do not radically change, obscure, or destroy character-defining spaces, materials,
features, or finishes. Alterations may include changes to the site or setting, such as the selective
removal of buildings or other features of the building site or setting that are intrusive, not character
defining, or outside the building’s period of significance.
Response: Described above.
Pg: 88. Identifying, retaining and preserving wood features that are important in defining the
overall historic character of the building (such as siding, cornices, brackets, window and door
surrounds, and steps) and their paints, finishes, and colors.
Response: The proposed design for the new Flat Roof Deck above the Sunroom shall be in
keeping with the existing Garage/ Roof Deck design. With regards to retaining wood features,
we will be preserving the original log newel post and rail design.
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
3
Pg: 88. Protecting and maintaining wood features by ensuring that historic drainage features
that divert rainwater from wood surfaces (such as roof overhangs, gutters, and downspouts) are
intact and functioning properly.
Response: Installing proper waterproofing techniques and water diversion is our primary
objective. We will be utilizing the latest membrane and flashing details above the Roof Deck
while installing gutters and downspouts to reduce the water runoff from the gable roofs above.
Pg: 89. Retaining coatings (such as paint) that protect the wood from moisture and ultraviolet
light. Paint removal should be considered only when there is paint surface deterioration and as part
of an overall maintenance program which involves repainting or applying other appropriate
coatings.
Response: Proper paint removal and log wall paint/stain applications will be utilized.
Pg: 91. Protecting adjacent materials when working on other wood features.
Response: These wood elements shall be protected.
Pg: 92. Replacing in kind an entire wood feature that is too deterio- rated to repair (if the overall
form and detailing are still evident) using physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature or
when the replacement can be based on historic documentation. Examples of such wood features
include a cornice, entablature, or a balustrade. If using wood is not feasible, then a compatible
substitute material may be considered.
Response: With regards to retaining wood features, we will be preserving the original log newel
post and rail design if these existing elements prove too deteriorated to reuse.
Pg: 98. Identifying, retaining, and preserving roofs and their functional and decorative features
that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. The form of the roof
(gable, hipped, gambrel, flat, or mansard) is significant, as are its decorative and functional features
(such as cupolas, cresting, parapets, monitors, chimneys, weather vanes, dormers, ridge tiles, and
snow guards), roofing material (such as slate, wood, clay tile, metal, roll roofing, or asphalt
shingles), and size, color, and patterning.
Response: We will be replacing the existing flat roofed Garage/ Roof Deck with a proposed
Sunroom/ Roof Deck. The size, scale and proportion of this element will be retained.
Pg: 99. Repairing a roof by ensuring that the existing historic or compatible non-historic roof
covering is sound and waterproof. Repair may include the limited replacement in kind or with a
compatible substitute material of missing materials (such as wood shingles, slates, or tiles) on a
main roof, as well as those extensively deteriorated or missing components of features when there
are surviving prototypes, such as ridge tiles, dormer roofing, or roof monitors. Using corrosion-
resistant roof fasteners (e.g., nails and clips) to repair a roof to help extend its longevity.
Response: We are proposing to utilize the latest membrane and flashing techniques to divert
stormwater runoff away from the structure.
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
4
Pg: 100. Replacing in kind an entire roof covering or feature that is too deteriorated to repair (if
the overall form and detailing are still evident) using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce
the feature or when the replacement can be based on historic documentation. Examples of such a
feature could include a large section of roofing, a dormer, or a chimney. If using the same kind of
material is not feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered.
Response: While we are proposing to clad the existing log wall of the Cabin with conventional
framing clad with faux logs to blend with the existing Cabin, the new Sunroom/ Roof Deck
will be clad in vertical wood siding to match the upper wall gable forms.
Pg: 102. Identifying, retaining, and preserving windows and their functional and decorative
features that are important to the overall character of the building. The window material and how the
window operates (e.g., double hung, casement, awning, or hopper) are significant, as are its
components (including sash, muntins, ogee lugs, glazing, pane configuration, sills, mullions, casings,
or brick molds) and related features, such as shutters.
Response: The existing windows shall be retained.
Pg: 109. Adding new window openings on rear or other secondary, less-visible elevations, if
required by a new use. The new openings and the windows in them should be compatible with the
overall design of the building but, in most cases, not duplicate the historic fenestration.
Response: The openings at the existing Cabin shall remain the same. The new Sunroom/ Roof
Deck will incorporate (2) new Clad Folding Glass Door Systems. The first will be located where
the existing Garage Door lies (matching the scale and proportion of the Garage Door) and the
second will be on the Western face which will not affect the visual impact at the approach for
the surrounding neighbors.
Pg: 110. Identifying, retaining, and preserving entrances and porches and their functional and
decorative features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. The
materials themselves (including masonry, wood, and metal) are significant, as are their features, such
as doors, transoms, pilasters, columns, balustrades, stairs, roofs, and projecting canopies.
Response: The existing entrances and porches shall be preserved.
Pg: 123. Replacing in kind or with a compatible substitute material large portions or entire
features of the structural system that are either extensively damaged or deteriorated or that are
missing when there are surviving prototypes, such as cast-iron columns, trusses, or masonry walls.
Substitute material must be structurally sufficient, physically compatible with the rest of the system,
and, where visible, must have the same form, design, and appearance as the historic feature.
Response: We are proposing replacing the exterior faux log cladding of the existing Garage
with vertical wood siding in order to create a clean siding transition between the Cabin and
new Sunroom/ Roof Deck. This vertical wood siding is an existing design feature located on
the exterior gable forms.
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
5
Pg: 124. Correcting structural deficiencies needed to accommodate a new use in a manner that
preserves the structural system and individual character-defining features.
Response: The character defining features of the Cabin shall remain.
Pg: 138. Protecting and maintaining buildings and site features by providing proper drainage to
ensure that water does not erode foundation walls, drain toward the building, or damage or erode the
landscape.
Response: We are proposing provide proper drainage to shed water away from the Cabin and
its structural elements.
Pg: 142. Designing and installing a new feature on a site when the historic feature is completely
missing. This could include missing outbuildings, terraces, drives, foundation plantings, specimen
trees, and gardens. The design may be an accurate restoration based on documentary and physical
evidence, but only when the feature to be replaced coexisted with the features currently on the site.
Or, it may be a new design that is compatible with the historic character of the building and site.
Response: N/A
Pg: 157. Using the same forms, materials, and color range of the historic building in a manner
that does not duplicate it, but distinguishes the addition from the original building.
Response: As described above, we are proposing to replace the siding of the new Sunroom/
Roof Deck with vertical wood siding. This particular element was not part of the original ‘Old
Homestead Cabin’ hence we would prefer to distinguish it from the original building.
Pg: 157. Basing the alignment, rhythm, and size of the window and door openings of the new
addition on those of the historic building.
Response: The openings at the existing Cabin shall remain the same. The new Sunroom/ Roof
Deck will incorporate (2) new Clad Folding Glass Door Systems. The first will be located where
the existing Garage Door lies (matching the scale and proportion of the Garage Door) and the
second will be on the Western face which will not affect the visual impact at the approach for
the surrounding neighbors.
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
APPENDIX "B"
DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES
A. GENERAL
1. New construction shall be compatible in size, form, scale, materials, and texture with
adjacent historic buildings and/or with dominant architectural character of the district.
Response: Around 1990 the Original ‘Old Homestead Cabin’ was replaced with a Replica Cabin as the
original structure had significantly deteriorated due to the lack of a supporting foundation. Though
similar in size and scale, this replica included a new Garage Structure with a Flat Roof Deck above.
Unfortunately, this Garage was not adequately designed or built with proper waterproofing and as a
result, runoff water sheds in towards the load bearing log walls of the Cabin (South Wall of the Den)
rather than away from it. Over the years, this wall has deteriorated to the point that many of the existing
logs have rotted out and no longer have the structural capacity to support the floor above. Per the
recommendation of our Structural Engineer we are proposing to replace these logs with standard wood
framing which will be clad in faux logs scribed to match the existing log wall.
With regards to the Existing Garage, we would like to alter the Garage use with a Sunroom/ Roof Deck
above which will match the existing Garage square footage, form and scale. This structure will be
constructed of standard wood framing and will be clad in vertical wood siding matching the existing
upper gables. This new design will not affect the overall scale and proportion of the Homestead Cabin.
2. Contemporary designs expressing the elements described in (1. Above) are I
encouraged.
Response: The new Sun Room/Roof Deck will incorporate (2) new Clad Folding Glass Door Systems.
The first will be located where the existing Garage Door lies (matching the scale and proportion of the
Garage Door) and the second will be on the Western face which will not affect the visual impact at the
approach for the surrounding neighbors.
3. Imitating in detail an earlier style of architecture is discouraged.
N/A.
B. SITING
1. In addition to the zoning requirements, the relationship of new additions to the street
and to the open space between buildings shall be compatible with adjacent historic
buildings and with the historic character of the surrounding area.
N/A
2. New additions shall be sited so that the impact to the primary facades(s) is kept to a
minimum. Additions shall generally be located at the rear portions of the property or in
such locations where they have the least visual impact from public ways.
Response: The proposed Sun Room/ Roof Deck will not alter the impact of the scale or proportion of the
existing Homestead Cabin. The (2) new Folding Doors will either match the scale of the existing Garage
Door or be located to the rear (Western face) of the Cabin minimizing any visual impact from public
ways.
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
C. LANDSCAPE
1. Traditional landscape elements evident in the district - grass, trees, shrubs, picket
fences, etc. - should be preserved and are encouraged in site redevelopment.
Response: The existing Landscape Elements shall be preserved.
2. Landscaping such as trees, bushes, foundation plantings, garden beds or brick or
paving work shall not be regulated by the Commission with the exception of removal or
radical trimming of large established trees or vegetation (potentially 50 years or older),
except where necessary for immediate public safety as determined by a certified arborist
and the Deschutes County Planning Division.
N/A
3. No Commission review is required if any new walls or fencing on a historic resource
property complies with all the standard fencing requirements as listed in the Deschutes
County Code Chapter 2.28 as well as comply with the following standards.
a. Rear Lot fencing shall be a typical board fencing, brick, or native Central
Oregon drystack mortared stones.
b. Fencing between the front or side walls of a structure abutting a road ri ght of way
shall be a typical picket fencing, brick or native Central Oregon dry stack mortared stones with
the exception of property located within the Drake Park Neighborhood Historic District. All
new fencing between the front or side walls of structure abutting a road right of way shall
require review and approval by the Commission.
N/A
D. BUILDING HEIGHT
1. In addition to the zoning requirements, the height of new additions shall not exceed the
height of the historic building, or of historic buildings in the surrounding area. The
surrounding area includes either historic building(s) within 250 feet of the subject property
or similar style historic buildings within Deschutes County.
Response: The Proposed Sunroom with Roof Deck above shall remain the same height and proportion
of the existing Garage. This will not exceed the height of the Homestead Cabin.
E. BUILDING BULK
1. The apparent size of primary elements of new construction shall not exceed that of the
largest adjacent historic building and the surrounding area.
Response: The Proposed Sunroom/ Roof Deck shall remain the same size and scale of the existing
Garage.
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
F. PROPORTION AND SCALE
1. The relationship of height to width of new additions and their sub-elements, such as
windows and doors and of alterations, shall be compatible with related elements of the
historic building and with the historic character of the surrounding area. Such as the
typical historic windows which have an approximate proportion of 2 vertical to 1
horizontal.
Response: The proposed South facing Folding Glass Door shall have a similar proportion and scale to
the existing Garage Door. The proposed West facing Folding Glass Door replaces existing Windows and
does not visually impact the Building Approach or the adjacent neighbor views.
2.The relationship of solids to voids (wall to window) shall be compatible with related
elements on the historic building and with the historic character of the surrounding
area.
Response: The new South facing Folding Glass Door shall be similar in scale and proportion with the
existing Solid/ Void elements of the Homestead Cabin.
3.The relationship of height to width of primary and secondary elements of new
construction shall be compatible with the dominant historic character of the district or
similar historic buildings within Deschutes County.
N/A
G. EXTERIOR FEATURES
1. General
(a) To the extent practicable, original historic architectural elements and materials
shall be preserved.
Response: We are proposing to keep the Existing Newel Posts and Rail design for the new Roof Deck,
please refer to the Elevations.
(b) Architectural elements and materials for new additions shall be compatible with
related elements of the historic building and with the historic character of the
surrounding area.
N/A
(c) The preservation, cleaning, repair, and other treatment of original materials shall
be in accord with the Secretary of lnterior's Standards of Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings Appendix "C".
(d)
(e) Exterior features such as bays, porches, balconies, and other architectural
elements that establish the district's historic character are encouraged i n new
construction .
N/A
2. Foundations:
(a) Concrete or masonry foundations to replace deteriorated wood foundations are
encouraged . Such new foundations shall be covered with board skirting or similar
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
treatment to match the original appearance and extend to within six to eight inches
(6" - 8") of the ground level.
(b) Concrete or masonry foundations for new additions need not be covered with
material that stimulates earlier construction.
(c) New foundations shall not significantly alter the historic elevation of the building.
N/A
3. Materials:
(a) New construction should employ materials traditional to the district--wood, stone,
and brick. Such materials should be employed in their traditional configuration, e.g.,
drop siding, common brick, standard shingles.
Response: The Proposed Sunroom/ Roof Deck will be clad in vertical wood siding matching the existing
upper gable siding areas to help distinguish it from the original form of Log Structure of the Homestead
Cabin.
4. Roofs:
(a) Roofs on new additions shall be of forms (gabled, hipped, etc.) that are
compatible with the historic building and the historic character of the district.
Response: The Proposed design for the new Flat Roof Deck above the Sunroom shall be in keeping with
the Existing Garage/ Roof Deck design.
(b) Metal roof material is discouraged.
Response: The existing Shingle Roof will remain but we are proposing to add new gutters and
downspouts in the Roof Deck location to reduce the quantity of rain water runoff.
5. Garages/Carports:
(a) When feasible, garages and carports should be located on the site where they have
the minimum visual impact from public ways.
N/A
(b) Where garages must face the street front, they should be designed to minimize
their bulk and visual impact. Single-car garage doors should be employed.
N/A
(c) Detached garages are encouraged.
N/A
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 | P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
(541) 388-6575 cdd@deschutes .org www.deschutes.org/cd
STAFF REPORT
FILE NUMBER: 247-18-000658-HS
HEARING DATE & TIME: November 5, 2018 at 5:30 p.m.
HEARING LOCATION: Barnes & Sawyer Rooms
Deschutes Services Center
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97708
APPLICANT: Jeffrey Klein
70 SW Century Drive, 100-186
Bend, OR 97702
OWNER: Scott Joseph and Sue Anne Olson
17600 Vandevert Road
Bend, OR 97707
REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of an alteration of an existing
single-family residence located within the Forest Use Zone. The
structure is a Goal 5 Historic Landmark, i.e., the William P. Vandevert
Ranch Homestead House. The applicant has also requested approval
of a detached garage, to be located approximately 50 feet to the
northeast of the historic house.
STAFF CONTACT: Zechariah Heck, Associate Planner
zechh@deschutes.org | (541) 385-1704
APPLICABLE CRITERIA
Title 2, Deschutes County Administration Ordinance
Chapter 2.28. Historic Preservation and Historic Landmarks Commission
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 18.40, Forest Use Zone – F-2
Chapter 18.84, Landscape Management Combining – LM
Chapter 18.88, Wildlife Area Combing Zone – WA
ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
247-18-000658-HS Page 2 of 21
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 5. Supplemental Sections
Section 5.9. Goal 5 Inventory – Cultural and Historic Resources
BASIC FINDINGS
A. LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 17600 Vandevert Road,
Bend, and is identified on County Assessor Tax Map 20-11-18D, as Tax Lot 13800.
B. LOT OF RECORD: The subject property is a legal lot of record as it is Tract L of the
Vandevert Ranch Phase II subdivision.
C. ZONING: The property is zoned Forest Use 2 (F-2), Flood Plain (FP), and is within the
Landscape Management (LM) and Wildlife Area (WA) Combining Zones.
D. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is approximately 3.88 acres in size. The Little
Deschutes River traverses the western edge of the property and there is sparse
vegetation scattered throughout. The existing dwelling onsite is connected to William P.
Vandevert and his homestead established in 1892.
E. LAND USE HISTORY: The following land use actions are appurtenant to the subject
property and/or the parent parcel.
PA-89-5 & ZC-89-6 – Approval of a plan amendment and zone change allowing the subject
properties to be designated by the county’s comprehensive plan as Forest instead of
Agriculture and for the same area to be rezoned from EFU-80 to F-3.
HS-90-59 – Historic site findings of the William P. Vandevert House.
CU-90-17 & TP-90-749 – Approved application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and
tentative plat for a 21-lot cluster subdivision.
LL-91-144 – Approval of consolidation of tax lots 1900 and 2400, Township 20 South,
Range 11 East W.M.
TP-92-772 –Tentative Plat for Phase II in the Vandevert Ranch Subdivision to create seven
residential lots pursuant to the CUP previously approved for a cluster subdivision on the
subject property.
MC-92-16 – Modification of Conditions regarding on the on-site sewage disposal system
for these lots and to extend the time for correcting map and legal description errors.
E-93-84 – Approved extension of TP-92-772 and MC-92-16.
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
247-18-000658-HS Page 3 of 21
FPA-94-4 – Final Plat for Vandevert Ranch Phase II
The following information was found in the property record, but were not assigned
specific file numbers.
1978 memo stating the condition of the house (needs rehabilitation) and that the
property owner lived in other house on property. A historical accounting of the
subject property by Claude Vandevert in 1971 states that he lived in the original
structure until 1954 when he built the second dwelling.1
December 1987 memo explaining request to relocate house 100 feet north and 20
feet east of original location. Also notes 1950s era home to the southeast of the
cabin. However, the record does not indicate that there was any formal file or
permit number to relocate the house but there was a demolition permit issued in
June 1988.
F. AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division received the transmittal responses from the
following agencies.
Deschutes County Transportation Planner, Peter Russell – 541-383-6718
I have reviewed the transmittal materials to alter an existing single-family structure in the
Forest (F-2) and Landscape Management (LM) zones at 17600 Vandevert Road, aka 20-11-
18D, Tax Lot 13800. The structure is a Historic Landmark, i.e., the William P. Vandevert
Ranch Homestead House.
The proposed use will not require and traffic analysis or require any transportation
system development charges (SDCs).
Deschutes County Building Official, Randy Scheid – 541-317-3137
NOTICE: The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code mandates that Access,
Egress, Setbacks, Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. must be specifically
addressed during the appropriate plan review process with regard to any proposed
structures and occupancies.
Accordingly, all Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure,
occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review.
1 There is no permit history indicating approval of second dwelling. Under current standards, a property in
the F-2 Zone would not be permitted to have two dwellings. Within this report, staff does not make any
determinations of the legality of the second dwelling on the subject property.
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
247-18-000658-HS Page 4 of 21
La Pine Rural Fire Protection District, Chief Mike Supkis – chiefsupkis@lapinefire.com
The La Pine Rural Fire Protection District has received the County Planning Division
request for comment on a proposed alteration of a single family residence in the Forest
Use Zone at 17600 Vandevert Road 247-18-000656- -AD, 657-LM, 658-HS.
The fire district request the property be reviewed and brought up to the required County
standards (where it is not) of the Forest Use Zone 18.40.070 (fire siting requirements) and
18.40.080 (access roads). Particular attention should be made to the required on site
water supply, fire breaks, and road access standards. The proposed project and property,
although in a river corridor area, is also in a very high Wildland Fire Hazard Area. The
District requests that the landscape planning use the Oregon Forestland – Urban Interface
Fire Protection Act standards – OAR 629-044, as well as, FireWise and FireFree landscaping
best practices criteria to design and maintain a safe landscape for this environment.
G. NOTICE REQUIREMENT/PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed a written
Notice of Application to property owners within 750 feet of the subject property on
August 22, 2018. A Notice of Public Hearing was also sent on October 11, 2018 to specify
the Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commission will hold a public hearing on the
proposal on November 5, 2018. No responses were received from the public.
H. REVIEW PERIOD: This application was submitted on August 16, 2018. On September 14,
2018, the Planning Division deemed the application incomplete as it was missing required
information. The application was accepted and deemed complete on October 10, 2018.
The 150th day on which the County must take final action on this application is March 8,
2019.
STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS
TITLE 2, ADMINISTRATION
A. CHAPTER 2.28. HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION
1. Section 2.28.090. Exterior Alteration and New Building Restrictions.
A. Except as provided in DCC 2.28.090([K]), no person may demolish or alter
any historic or cultural resource in such a manner as to affect its exterior
appearance or integrity, nor may any new structure and/or building be
constructed in an historic district, unless a certificate of approval has
been issued by the Landmarks Commission and the County.
B. Application for a certificate of approval for exterior demolition, alteration
or new construction under DCC 2.28.090 shall be made to the planning
division and shall be referred to the Landmarks Commission for review
and/or hearing. Quasi-judicial applications shall follow DCC Chapter 22.
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
247-18-000658-HS Page 5 of 21
Finding: The County has records dating back to 1976 of the State Historic Preservation Office’s
acknowledgement of the history and significance of the William P. Vandevert Ranch Homestead
House. The structure is listed on the County’s Goal 5 inventory of cultural and historic resources.2
The comprehensive plan describes the historic landmark as follows:
The Vandevert Ranch House stands on the east bank of the Little Deschutes River at 17600
Vandevert Road near Sunriver. The homestead was established in 1892, and has been recently
relocated and renovated. Vandevert family history in the area spans 100 years.
The application materials state the structure of the historic house is deteriorating due to
improper waterproofing. The applicant has proposed to replace several rotting logs, in addition
to replacing the existing garage with a sunroom. The proposed sunroom will have a folding glass
door system. To better waterproof the structure, the applicant proposes to install rain gutters
and downspouts that will direct water away from the structure.
The applicant submitted an application for a certificate of approval for a major exterior alteration
of a historic structure; the applicant materials are referenced herein. Based on the nature of the
proposal, the application will be reviewed at a public hearing by the Historic Landmarks
Commission (HLC). Procedures found in DCC Chapter 22 for quasi-judicial applications have been
applied to the application.
Furthermore, the applicant has also proposed to construct a detached three-car garage on the
property. The garage, in and of itself, is not subject to all of the requirements in DCC Chapter
2.28 because the comprehensive plan recognizes the homestead house as the historic landmark
and not the entire property. Staff notes the applicants could apply to construct the detached
garage on its own without going through a review by the HLC. Nonetheless, the proposed garage
is mentioned in this staff report where applicable to the approval criteria.
C. All applications for alteration or new construction shall be accompanied
by appropriate plans and/or specifications.
Staff Comment: The submitted application for alteration was accompanied by plans,
photographs, and a written description of the applicant’s intentions. Staff asks the HLC to
determine if the application is accompanied with adequate information.
Possible HLC Direction: 3
Motion 1 – The application contains sufficient information for the commission to make an
informed determination on the applicant’s request. This criterion is met.
2 Page 38, Section 5.9, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
3 The HLC is tasked with determining if the subject proposal meets the requirements listed in the
applicable sections of the Deschutes County Code. For the HLC’s consideration, staff has included
possible decisions for the HLC to make on each criterion. Please note, the matrix is intended to aid the
HLC in their decision making process. This matrix does not represent all possible decisions.
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
247-18-000658-HS Page 6 of 21
Motion 2 – The application lacks sufficient information for the commission to make an informed
determination on the applicant’s request. As such, the present application is denied.
D. Any request for a certificate of approval for demolition, exterior alteration
or new construction must be filed prior to or in conjunction with an
application for any building or land use permit.
Finding: The applicant has submitted an application for a quasi-judicial review of a major
alteration in advance of any building permits for the said repairs.
E. Upon approval by the Chair of the Landmarks Commission, applications
for minor alterations may be processed administratively.
F. Applications for major alterations shall be forwarded to the Landmarks
Commission.
Finding: The applicant has applied for a major alteration to the Vandevert Homestead House. As
such, the application is to be reviewed by the HLC.
G. Applications for certificates of approval for exterior alterations to
structures and/or buildings in an historic district or to a designated
historical structure and/or building shall be evaluated by the Landmarks
Commission under the following criteria:
1. Applicable provisions of the County Comprehensive Plan;
Finding: Goal 5 of the County Comprehensive Plan is to promote the preservation of designated
historic and cultural resources. The proposed repairs are considered a major alteration due to
the potential diversion of the original design and materials used to construct the original
homestead house. The HLC is tasked with making specific findings on whether the applicant’s
proposal will lessen the historic or architectural significance of the original structure. Further
discussion of applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan are addressed below.
2. Applicable sections of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and
Guidelines for Rehabilitation;
Finding: As stated previously, the applicant has proposed to replace several of the logs
comprising the historic house due to severe rot, in addition to replacing the existing garage with
a sunroom. The proposed sunroom will have a folding glass door system. The application
materials include proposed findings addressing the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and
Guidelines for Rehabilitation. The applicant proposes to replace compromised logs with
conventional wood framing and inscribe faux logs to replicate the existing design.
Applicable sections of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation
are listed below.
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
247-18-000658-HS Page 7 of 21
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION
A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires
minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and
environment.
The structure is a historic homestead house and will remain a residential use. This criterion is
met.
The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of
historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall
be avoided.
Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural
features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.
Staff asks the HLC to determine if the applicant’s proposal will detract from the historic character
of the property or create a false sense of historical development.
Possible HLC Direction:
Motion 1 – The proposal in its entirety maintains the historic character. This criterion is met.
Motion 2 – The proposal diminishes the historic character of the homestead house. As such,
criterion is not met.
Motion 3 – The commission recognizes the need to repair the flat roof above the garage of the
historic structure. However, the proposal to convert the garage into a sunroom by installing a
folding glass door, in addition to using faux log siding removes historic materials and detracts
from historic features of the homestead house. The HLC approves of alterations that will remedy
the drainage problem of the flat roof, but does not approve of the alteration to install the folding
glass door and/or the use of faux log siding.
Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship
that characterize a property shall be preserved.
Staff asks the HLC to determine if the applicant’s proposal will preserve distinctive features,
finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the history
of the subject property.
Possible HLC Direction:
Motion 1 – The proposal will preserve features, finishes, and construction techniques of
craftsmanship that characterize the history of the homestead house. This criterion is met.
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
247-18-000658-HS Page 8 of 21
Motion 2 – The proposal does not preserve features, finishes, and construction techniques of
craftsmanship that characterize the history of the homestead house. As such, this criterion is not
met.
Motion 3 – The commission recognizes the need to repair the flat roof above the garage of the
historic structure. However, the proposal to convert the garage into a sunroom by installing a
folding glass door, in addition to using faux log siding does not preserve the features, finishes,
and construction techniques of craftsmanship that characterize the history of the homestead
house. Therefore, the HLC approves of alterations that will remedy the drainage problem of the
flat roof, but does not approve of the alteration to install the folding glass door and/or the use of
faux log siding.
Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature
shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where
possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by
documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
The applicant proposes to replace compromised logs with conventional wood framing and
inscribe faux logs to replicate the existing design. Additionally, the applicant has asked to convert
the existing garage to a sunroom with folding glass doors. The applicant has consulted with a
licensed structural engineer, Rolf Armstrong,4 to confirm the structural integrity of the structure
and necessity of the repairs.
Staff asks the HLC to determine if the proposal is in conformance with this criterion.
Possible HLC Direction:
Motion 1 – The application sufficiently documents the need to replace the wood logs of the
homestead house. The applicant’s proposal to install faux wood log siding to match the original
design and visual quality is adequate. Furthermore, the proposed folding glass door
compliments the original visual quality of the homestead house and is approved by the HLC. As
such, this criterion is met.
Motion 2 – The proposal does not include substantiated evidence for the need to replace the
deteriorated logs. This criterion is not met.
Motion 3 – The commission recognizes the need to repair the flat roof above the garage of the
historic structure. However, the HLC finds that the compromised logs can be repaired rather
than replaced. The HLC approves of this criterion with a condition of approval that the logs are
repaired and not replaced.
4 Oregon License No. 74118PE.
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
247-18-000658-HS Page 9 of 21
New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy
historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated
from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural
features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
Based on the extent of the proposed exterior alterations, staff asks the HLC to determine if the
proposal is in conformance with this criterion.
Possible HLC Direction:
Motion 1 – The new work described in the application materials is differentiated from the historic
cabin and is compatible with the mass, size, scale and architectural features. As such, this
criterion is met.
Motion 2 – The proposed alterations destroy historic materials of the historic home. The
proposed new work is not compatible with the mass, size, scale and architectural features of the
historic structure. This criterion is not met.
Motion 3 – The commission recognizes the need to repair the flat roof above the garage of the
historic structure. However, the HLC finds the proposed folding glass door is not adequate in
differentiating from the old and is not compatible with the mass, size, scale and architectural
features of the historic structure. The HLC approves of this criterion with a condition of approval
the logs are replaced with actual wood logs and that no folding glass door is used.
New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a
manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic
property and its environment would be unimpaired.
The application materials do depict a detached garage to the north east of the historic structure,
approximately 50 feet away.5 Staff asks the HLC to determine if the proposed new structure is
located in a way that will not negatively impact the integrity of the historic structure/property.
Possible HLC Direction:
Motion 1 – The proposed three-car garage will not interfere with the integrity of the historic
property. This criterion is met.
Motion 2 – The proposed three-car garage interferes with the integrity of the historic property.
This criterion is not met.
5 Staff finds this is the only criterion where the proposed garage is subject to the standards in DCC
Chapter 2.28 or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. If the HLC approves the
proposal to alter the historic structure, the proposed garage will be subject to an administrative review
for compatibility with the LM and WA Combining Zone requirements, in addition to the F-2 Zone
requirements.
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
247-18-000658-HS Page 10 of 21
Motion 3 – The proposed three-car garage may interfere with the integrity of the historic
property. The HLC finds this criterion may be complied with if the applicant relocates the house
an additional X feet away from the homestead house.
GUIDELINES FOR REHABILITATING HISTORIC BUILDINGS
Unlike the Standards, the Guidelines are not codified as program requirements... The
Guidelines are intended to assist in applying the Standards to projects generally;
consequently, they are not meant to give case-specific advice or address exceptions or
rare instances.
Recommended
Identifying, retaining, and preserving wood features that are important in defining
the overall historic character of the building such as siding, cornices, brackets,
window architraves, and doorway pediments; and their paints, finishes, and colors.
Protecting and maintaining wood features by providing proper drainage so that
water is not allowed to stand on flat, horizontal surfaces or accumulate in
decorative features.
Repairing wood features by patching, piecing-in, consolidating, or otherwise
reinforcing the wood using recognized preservation methods.
Repair may also include the limited replacement in kind--or with compatible
substitute material--of those extensively deteriorated or missing parts of features
where there are surviving prototypes such as brackets, molding, or sections of siding.
Replacing in kind an entire wood feature that is too deteriorated to repair--if the
overall form and detailing are still evident--using the physical evidence as a model to
reproduce the feature.
If using the same kind of material is not technically or economically feasible, then a
compatible substitute material may be considered.
Not Recommended
Removing or radically changing wood features which are important in defining the
overall historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character is
diminished.
Removing a major portion of the historic wood from a facade instead of repairing or
replacing only the deteriorated wood, then reconstructing the facade with new
material in order to achieve a uniform or "improved" appearance.
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
247-18-000658-HS Page 11 of 21
Radically changing the type of finish or its color or accent scheme so that the historic
character of the exterior is diminished.
Failing to identify, evaluate, and treat the causes of wood deterioration, including
faulty flashing, leaking gutters, cracks and holes in siding, deteriorated caulking in
joints and seams, plant material growing too close to wood surfaces, or insect or
fungus infestation.
Replacing an entire wood feature such as a cornice or wall when repair of the wood
and limited replacement of deteriorated or missing parts are appropriate.
Using substitute material for the replacement part that does not convey the visual
appearance of the surviving parts of the wood feature or that is physically or
chemically incompatible.
Removing a feature that is unrepairable and not replacing it; or replacing it with a
new feature that does not convey the same visual appearance.
Staff Comment: Based on the submitted application materials, staff asks the HLC to determine
if the applicant’s proposal generally meets the guidelines detailed above. If not, staff looks to the
HLC to determine if a decision approving the proposed alterations may be conditioned to help
ensure the guidelines are met.
Possible HLC Direction:
Motion 1 – The new work described in the application materials is necessary to preserve the
historic structure. The HLC finds the replacements will be limited and are with compatible
substitute material based on technical and economic feasibility of reconstructing a log house.
The applicant has adequately avoided items on the “Not Recommended” list. As such, this
criterion is met.
Motion 2 – The proposed alterations remove a major portion of the historic wood from the house
instead of repairing or replacing only the deteriorated wood. The proposal to use faux wood log
siding as a substitute and/or use a folding glass door does not accurately convey the visual
appearance of the surviving parts of the historic structure and is incompatible. Too many of the
items on the “Not Recommended” list are part of the applicant’s proposal. This criterion is not
met.
Motion 3 – The commission recognizes the need to repair the flat roof above the garage of the
historic structure. However, the HLC finds the applicant’s proposal incorporates too many of the
items on the “Not Recommended” list. The HLC approves of this criterion with a condition of
approval that the deteriorated logs are replaced with actual wood logs and that no folding glass
door is used.
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
247-18-000658-HS Page 12 of 21
3. The reasonableness of the proposed alteration and its relationship
to the public interest in the structure's and/or building's
preservation or renovation;
Staff Comment: Staff finds the proposed repairs are reasonable given the condition of the log
structure. However, staff asks the HLC to make specific findings on the appropriateness of the
replacement design.
Possible HLC Direction:
Motion 1 – The applicant has adequately provided evidence the proposed alteration is necessary
to preserve the historic structure. As such, this criterion is met.
Motion 2 – The proposed alterations are not reasonable and do not aid the preservation of the
historic structure. This criterion is not met.
Motion 3 – The commission recognizes the need to repair the flat roof above the garage of the
historic structure. However, the HLC finds the applicant’s proposal to use a folding glass door
and/or faux wood log siding is not reasonable. Therefore, the HLC approves of this criterion with
a condition of approval that the deteriorated logs are replaced with actual wood logs and that no
folding glass door is used.
4. The design review guidelines set out in Appendix B at the end of
DCC 2.28;
APPENDIX “B” – DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES
D. BUILDING HEIGHT
1. In addition to the zoning requirements, the height of new additions shall not
exceed the height of the historic building or of historic buildings in the
surrounding area…
Finding: The application materials indicate the height of the proposed repairs will match the
existing structure in scale. This guideline will be met.
F. PROPORTION AND SCALE
1. The relationship of height to width of new additions and their sub-elements, such
as windows and doors and of alterations, shall be compatible with related
elements of the historic building and with the historic character of the
surrounding area. Such as the typical historic windows which have an
approximate proportion of 2 vertical to 1 horizontal.
2. The relationship of solids to voids (wall to window) shall be compatible with
related elements on the historic building and with the historic character of the
surrounding area.
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
247-18-000658-HS Page 13 of 21
Staff Comment: The applicant states the proposed folding glass door will have a similar
proportion and scale to the existing garage door. Staff asks the HLC to make specific findings if
the proposed folding glass door is compatible with related elements of the historic building.
Possible HLC Direction:
Motion 1 – The proposed folding glass door will have a similar proportion and scale to the
existing garage door. This criterion is met.
Motion 2 – The proposed folding glass door does not have a similar proportion and scale to the
existing garage door. As such, this criterion is not met. The HLC finds this criterion can be met if
no folding glass door is used.
G. EXTERIOR FEATURES
1. General
(a) To the extent practicable, original historic architectural elements and
materials shall be preserved.
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to keep the existing newel posts and rail design for the
replacement roof deck. However, several walls will need to be replaced due to rot. According to
the applicant, a licensed engineer has reviewed the integrity of the structure and determined in
order to preserve the entire structure, certain walls that contain rot will need to be replaced.
Staff finds the applicant is taking adequate measures to assure preservation of the historic
structure. However, staff asks the HLC to determine if the applicant has taken adequate steps to
the extent practicable to preserve the historic house’s architectural elements and materials.
Possible HLC Direction:
Motion 1 – The applicant has taken adequate steps to preserve the original historic architectural
elements and materials of the historic house. As such, this criterion is met.
Motion 2 – The applicant has not taken adequate steps to preserve the original historic
architectural elements and materials of the historic house. As such, this criterion is not met.
Motion 3 – The applicant has not taken adequate steps to preserve the original historic
architectural elements and materials of the historic house. However, the HLC finds that if actual
wood logs are used to replace the deteriorating logs and/or if no folding glass door is used, this
criterion can be met.
(b) Architectural elements and materials for new additions shall be compatible
with related elements of the historic building and with the historic character
of the surrounding area.
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
247-18-000658-HS Page 14 of 21
(c) The preservation, cleaning, repair, and other treatment of original materials
shall be in accord with the Secretary of Interior's Standards of Rehabilitation
and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings Appendix “C”.
(d) Exterior features such as bays, porches, balconies, and other architectural
elements that establish the district's historic character are encouraged in
new construction.
Finding: The applicant is not proposing an addition of area to the historic structure or new
construction; only repairs to damaged logs are proposed. Where applicable the applicant has
addressed the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards of Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and staff’s comments/findings regarding the standards and
guidelines are addressed above.
3. Materials:
(a) New construction should employ materials traditional to the district – wood,
stone, and brick. Such materials should be employed in their traditional
configuration, e.g., drop siding, common brick, standard construction.
(b) Inappropriate materials such as plywood, plastic and metal sidings, imitation
brick and stone, and raw aluminum window frames that are not part of a
“clad” window are discouraged.
Staff Comment: As stated previously, the applicant proposes to keep the existing newel posts
and rail design for the replacement roof deck. However, several walls will need to be replaced
due to rot. According to the applicant, a licensed engineer has reviewed the integrity of the
structure and determined in order to preserve the entire structure, certain walls that contain rot
will need to be replaced. The application materials state the cost of replacing the rotted logs with
new logs is cost prohibitive. Thus, the rotted areas are to be replaced with vertical wood siding
matching the existing gable siding areas. Furthermore, included in the proposal is to convert the
existing garage door to a folding glass door to create a sun room. Staff asks the HLC to
determine if the applicant’s proposal utilizes materials appropriate to maintain the integrity of
the historic structure.
Possible HLC Direction:
Motion 1 – The proposal includes appropriate materials traditional to the historic structure. As
such, this criterion is met.
Motion 2 – The proposal includes inappropriate materials that are not encouraged. This criterion
is not met.
Motion 3 – As proposed, the application includes inappropriate materials that do not
complement the historic structure. However, the HLC finds that if actual wood logs are used to
replace the deteriorating logs and/or if no folding glass door is used, this criterion can be met.
4. Roofs:
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
247-18-000658-HS Page 15 of 21
(a) Roofs on new additions shall be of forms (gabled, hipped, etc.) that are
compatible with the historic building and the historic character of the district.
(b) Metal roof material is discouraged.
Staff Comment: In order to help preserve the structure and prevent future decay of the existing
log walls, the applicant proposes to add rain gutters and downspouts. Staff asks the HLC to
determine if the applicant’s proposal is appropriate.
Possible HLC Direction:
Motion 1 – The proposal to utilize metal rain gutters and downspouts is compatible with the
historic structure and will help preserve the building. This criterion is met.
Motion 2 – The proposal to utilize metal rain gutters and downspouts is not compatible with the
historic structure. Such materials shall not be used on the roof of this historic structure.
5. The physical condition of the structure and/or building;
Finding: The applicant has consulted with a licensed structural engineer to confirm the
structural integrity of the structure. As previously stated, there are several logs that are rotted
and need to be replaced according to the applicant. The proposed alteration is to repair
deteriorating log walls of the historic structure. Staff finds the applicant’s proposal will help
preserve, not compromise the physical condition of the existing structure.
6. The general compatibility of proposed exterior design,
arrangement, proportion, detail, scale, color, texture and materials
proposed to be used on the existing structure and/or building;
Staff Comment: Staff asks the HLC to determine the compatibility of the proposed exterior
design, specifically the folding glass door and the faux-log siding.
Possible HLC Direction:
Motion 1 – The proposal exterior design is generally compatible. This criterion is met.
Motion 2 – The proposal to use faux wood log siding and a folding glass door is not a compatible
exterior design. However, the HLC finds that if actual wood logs are used to replace the
deteriorating logs and/or if no folding glass door is used, this criterion can be met.
7. Whether the alteration is required to remedy an unsafe or
dangerous condition;
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
247-18-000658-HS Page 16 of 21
Finding: Staff finds that although not stated implicitly in the application materials, the
applicant’s proposal to replace decaying logs is connected to remedying an unsafe or dangerous
condition.
8. Other pertinent aesthetic factors, as appropriate.
Finding: Staff asks the HLC to determine if there are any other pertinent aesthetic factors to be
considered.
H. Applications for certificates of approval for new construction of structures
and/or buildings in an historic district shall be evaluated by the
Landmarks Commission under the following criteria:
1. The purpose of DCC 2.28;
2. The provisions of the County Comprehensive Plan;
3. The economic effect of the new structure and/or building on the
historical value of the district;
4. The effect of the proposed new structure and/or building on the
historical character of the district;
5. The general compatibility of the proposed exterior design,
arrangement, proportion, detail, scale, color, texture and materials
proposed to be used in the construction of the new structure
and/or building;
6. The design review guidelines set out in Appendix B at the end of
DCC 2.28 are the criteria for new construction;
Finding: Although the applicant is proposing to construct a new three-car garage on the
property, the subject property is not identified as a historic district. Thus, staff finds these criteria
are not applicable.
I. All decisions on certificates of approval shall be in writing.
Finding: Staff will coordinate with the HLC to ensure the final decision on the applicant’s
proposal will be in writing.
J. Nothing in DCC 2.28 shall be construed to prevent the ordinary
maintenance or repair (e.g., painting) of exterior architectural features of
a building or structure which does not involve a change in design or type
of materials.
Finding: The proposed alteration to the historic structure is considered a major alteration as
defined in DCC Chapter 2.28. If the applicant were to simply replace the rotting logs in a like-for-
like fashion, the proposal might fit under ordinary maintenance. However, the applicant has
proposed an alteration that certainly changes the type of materials and may change the design
of the historic structure. Thus, the proposal is being processed as a major alteration.
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
247-18-000658-HS Page 17 of 21
K A change in design or type of materials shall be allowed if the County
building official states in writing that the repair is necessary for personal
or public safety due to an unsafe or dangerous condition in or on the
building or structure.
Finding: The County building official has not submitted comments to the record stating the
repair is necessary to remedy a safety hazard. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable.
L. All decisions concerning certificates of approval under DCC 2.28.090 are
subject to appeal to the Board, as provided in DCC 2.28.150.
Finding: Appeals are subject to DCC 2.28.150 and the applicable County Ordinance (Title 22,
Procedures Ordinance).
TITLE 18, DESCHUTES COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
A. CHAPTER 18.40. FOREST USE ZONE – F-2
1. Section 18.40.020. Uses Permitted Outright
M. Alteration, restoration or replacement of a lawfully established dwelling
that:
1. Has intact exterior walls and roof structure;
2. Has indoor plumbing consisting of a kitchen sink, toilet and bathing
facilities connected to a sanitary waste disposal system;
3. Has interior wiring for interior lights;
4. Has a heating system; and
5. In the case of replacement, is removed, demolished or converted to
an allowable use within three months of completion of the
replacement dwelling.
Finding: The applicant proposes to alter an existing single-family dwelling and construct a
detached three-car garage.6 The original homestead house was built circa 1892, and, as noted in
the comprehensive plan, was later relocated around 1987. Staff finds the homestead house was
lawfully established. Furthermore, the alterations of the historic house are allowable in the F-2
Zone because the structure has intact exterior walls, a roof structure, contains indoor plumbing,
interior lights, and a heating system.
2. 18.40.090. Dimensional Standards
In an F 2 Zone, the following dimensional standards shall apply:
…
6 Because the detached garage on its own is not subject to review by the HLC, staff will issue a subsequent
administrative decision focused on the proposed garage’s compliance with the F-2 zoning requirements.
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
247-18-000658-HS Page 18 of 21
C. Building Height. No nonagricultural building or structure shall be erected
or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as approved under DCC
18.120.040.
Finding: The proposed alterations will not increase the height of the existing historic house. The
elevation drawings submitted by the applicant indicate the structure will not exceed 25 feet, four
inches.
3. 18.40.100. Yards and Setbacks
A. The front yard setback shall be 40 feet from a property line fronting on a
local street, 60 feet from a property line fronting on a collector and 100
feet from a property line fronting on an arterial.
B. Each side yard setback shall be a minimum of 25 feet except:
1. All parcels or lots with a side yard adjacent to zoned forest land
shall have a minimum side yard of 100 feet; and
2. Tracts 1-58 located in Haner Park, located in Township 22, Range 09,
Section 09BB and Section 04CC, and Tax Lot 2209000000600 shall
have a minimum side yard of 25 feet as long as the side yard abuts
the Forest Use 2 zone.
C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except:
1. All parcels or lots with rear yards adjacent to zoned forest land
shall have a minimum rear yard of 100 feet; and
2. Tracts 1-58 located in Haner Park, located in Township 22, Range 09,
Section 09BB and Section 04CC, and Tax Lot 2209000000600 shall
have a minimum rear yard of 25 feet as long as the rear yard abuts
the Forest Use 2 zone.
D. The setback from the north lot line shall meet the solar setback
requirements in DCC 18.116.180.
E. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required
by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon
and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met.
Finding: The proposed alterations will not increase the height or expand the footprint of the
existing historic house. Thus, the yard setbacks will not change and will remain in excess of 100
feet from the nearest property line. Additionally, the solar setback will not change and will
remain in compliance as the structure is further than 130 feet from the nearest north property
line. Any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes will be determined
at the time of building permit review.
4. 18.40.110. Stream Setbacks
All sewage disposal installations, such as vault toilets, septic tanks and drainfield
systems shall be set back from the ordinary high water mark along all streams
and lakes a minimum of 100 feet measured at right angles to the ordinary high
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
247-18-000658-HS Page 19 of 21
water mark. All structures, buildings or similar permanent fixtures shall be set
back from the ordinary high water mark along all streams or lakes a minimum of
100 feet measured at right angles to the ordinary high water mark.
Finding: The application materials do not indicate the septic system will need to change. The
historic structure is within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Little Deschutes River.
However, the proposed alteration does not expand the footprint of the existing dwelling and
there is evidence in the record the historic dwelling was sited in the current location before this
standard came into effect. The proposed alterations are to mainly remedy a leaky roof that is
causing damage to the historic structure.
B. CHAPTER 18.84, LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE
1. Section 18.84.050. Use Limitations.
A. Any new structure or substantial alteration of a structure requiring a
building permit, or an agricultural structure, within an LM Zone shall
obtain site plan approval in accordance with DCC 18.84 prior to
construction. As used in DCC 18.84 substantial alteration consists of an
alteration, which exceeds 25 percent in the size or 25 percent of the
assessed value of the structure.
FINDING: The proposed alterations to the existing, historic house will require a building permit
but do not exceed 25-percent of the size or the assessed value of the structure. Therefore, staff
finds the proposal to repair the historic dwelling are not subject to the LM approval criteria.
C. CHAPTER 18.88, WILDLIFE AREA COMBINING ZONE
Finding: Staff finds the approval criteria in the WA Zone are not applicable because the proposal
to repair/alter the historic house will not expand the footprint, does not constitute as a new
structure, and does not involve the creation of a new fence.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A. CHAPTER 5, SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS
1. Section 5.9. Goal 5 Inventory – Cultural and Historic Resources
Background
This section contains information from the 1979 Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan, as revised. It lists the cultural and historic resources in
Deschutes County. These inventories have been acknowledged by the Department
of Land Conservation and Development as complying with Goal 5.
Inventory
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
247-18-000658-HS Page 20 of 21
…
33. William P. Vandevert Ranch Homestead House: The Vandevert Ranch
House stands on the east bank of the Little Deschutes River at 17600
Vandevert Road near Sunriver. The homestead was established in 1892,
and has been recently relocated and renovated. Vandevert family history
in the area spans 100 years. 20-11-00 TL 1900.
Staff Comment: The William P. Vandervert House is a one and one-half story log building with a
shake, gable roof. According to the historical record, the logs on the south elevation of the main
body of the house have been hand-hewn and are chinked. Those on the north and east (front)
elevation are partly hewn and are unpeeled. Two gables or dormers break the roof on the front
elevation. A veranda extends along the full front elevation. The windows are one-over-one,
double-hung sash on the first floor. The gable ends are finished with horizontal boards.
The building was in fair condition in the last recorded account of the historical site, circa 1990.
Ownership of the property recently changed and the new owner commissioned an architect and
structural engineer to review the integrity of the structure. As stated in the application materials,
the architect and engineer both found several rotted logs that comprise the garage of the
historic structure. According to the applicant, the flat roof of the garage has inadequately
drained water, which caused moisture to seep into the log walls causing rot.
The applicant has made an application, referenced herein, to replace the rotted logs as well as
alter the flat roof over the garage to create a structure that will drain property and prevent
further damage to the historic structure. The property owner desires to convert the garage into a
sunroom. And, as such, has asked to install a folding glass door system to replace the existing
garage door. The applicant also plans to install rain gutters and downspouts to move water away
from the structure. Also, as part of the application, the applicant has proposed a detached
garage approximately 50 feet to the northeast of the historic structure.
Applicable standards of DCC Chapter 2.28 and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation are listed above. Staff finds the need to replace the rotted logs is reasonable and
that both codes allow for such maintenance. However, because the applicant has proposed an
alteration of the design and materials of the historic structure, staff asks the HLC to determine
the appropriateness of the applicant’s proposal. Staff finds that, at a minimum, replacement of
the rotted logs and remedying the inadequate drainage situation so that the structure does not
further decay could meet all applicable criteria and would not diminish the historical significance
of the Vandevert homestead house. Moreover, staff asks the HLC to determine if the proposed
design will lessen the integrity of the historic structure.
Possible HLC Direction:
Motion 1 – The applicant proposed an alteration that is compatible with DCC 2.28 and the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The alterations are necessary to preserve
the historic structure because of the leaking flat roof above the garage. Utilizing faux wood siding
and incorporating a folding glass door are reasonable alterations when considering technical
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)
247-18-000658-HS Page 21 of 21
and economic feasibility to repair a log house. The proposed design will not lessen the integrity
of the historic structure, and, moreover, follows the intention of the comprehensive plan to
maintain and preserve the historic resources of Deschutes County. Compliance with the
comprehensive plan is met.
Motion 2 – The applicant proposed an alteration that is incompatible with various sections DCC
2.28, as identified above. Although the commission recognizes the need to remedy the drainage
problem, the proposal to install a folding glass door and/or use faux log siding is not compatible
and would lessen the integrity of the historic structure. Therefore, the HLC will approve of
minimal alterations to remedy the leaking flat roof, but requires actual wood logs to replace any
deteriorated logs and does not permit a folding glass door to be installed.
CONCLUSION
Staff finds there are several criteria and issues necessitating specific findings and interpretations
by the HLC in order to determine if the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the
applicable criteria of Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, Deschutes County Comprehensive
Plan, and applicable sections of Secretary of the Interior’s Design Standards for Historic
Structures.
The HLC’s decision will determine if the applicant can proceed with the proposed alterations to
the historic structure. Staff will issue a separate administrative decision on the proposed three-
car garage.
DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION
Written by: Zechariah Heck, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: HLC Meeting Packet -- 11-05-18 (2319 : Meeting Packet)