landscape features, is substantiated by historic, pictorial, or physical evidence rather <br />than on conjectural designs. <br /> <br />Assuming the demolition of the existing structures and landscaping, the applicant explains that there will <br />be no historic features on the property to repair or replace in-kind, and no replacement of missing <br />features is proposed. The applicant also notes that new landscaping on the site will continue the existing <br />spatial relationships in the neighborhood, by providing landscaping on all sides of buildings. It is also <br />stated that the landscape will help to integrate the new building into the neighborhood and is not <br />proposed to mimic historic agricultural landscape. <br /> <br />Based on the findings above, this criterion is met. <br /> <br />EC 9.8175(6): New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction do not <br />unnecessarily destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that <br />characterize the property. The new work is differentiated from the old and is <br />compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and <br />massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. If a historic <br />property alteration is removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the <br />historic property and its environment will be unimpaired to the extent possible. <br /> <br />With the assumption of a bare earth site, the focus of the applicant’s response to this criterion is on <br />spatial relationships, and compatibility with nearby historic resources. <br /> <br />Spatial Relationships – The applicant acknowledges that properties the north and south of the site have <br />other historic resources that contribute to the Chase Garden Residential Grouping. The properties still <br />have single family homes on large lots surrounded by landscaping. In responding to the above criterion, <br />the applicant emphasizes the restriction on unnecessary destruction of spatial relationships. The <br />applicant points again to the Willakenzie Area Plan policy that allows for the redevelopment of historic <br />properties as high density residential use at the discretion of the property owner. <br /> <br />The high-density residential zoning would allow up to 112 units per acre, however, the applicant has <br />proposed a density of only 36 units per acre which is well below the maximum. Given the possibility for <br />a much high level of density, the applicant’s proposal is reasonable given the policy context and <br />assumption of eventual redevelopment of this site. <br /> <br />Compatibility – In evaluating compatibility, the applicant argues that the above criterion is primarily <br />focused on ensuring that new features are compatible with existing features on the site. Nonetheless, <br />the applicant goes on to evaluate the ensemble as a whole. The applicant states the grouping comprises <br />about 6.11 acres and includes five houses that are each slightly different, were built at different times in <br />different styles, and do not have a clear relationship to one another or otherwise create a cohesive <br />landscape except for their relation to the Chase family. The applicant goes on to look at nearby newer <br />construction which is comprised of buildings ranging from 3 to 5 stories with gable roofs and have varied <br />façade details that break of the building massing. The applicant states that their proposed building will <br />have distinctive façade features and a gable roof that makes the building feel more residential. <br /> <br />Attachment A