Appeal Final Order - Laserfiche WebLink

Final Order: The Harry and Etta Chase House | HDM 21-1/ HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2 Factor 2: Historic integrity Baker reiterates that fact that the Chase Gardens Residential Grouping is intended to be taken as a whole and that individual buildings may not in and of themselves be exceptional or outstanding. Baker references testimony from the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) that explained the process for amending or updating a nomination. Following this, Baker asserts that the process outlined by SHPO is necessary, and without it the historic significance of the property is supported, and the property should be preserved. Final Order Findings The Final Order of the Historic Review Board provides findings which address testimony from interested parties and discusses the applicant’s submittal. While the Board considered testimony from opponents, the Board ultimately found that the arguments raised by the applicant were sufficient to allow demolition when balancing this factor with others. The Board’s conclusion relied upon information provided by Heritage Consulting which asserted that the house had lost integrity with respect to setting, feeling, association, design, materials, and workmanship. The full findings of the Board are included in Attachment A. Planning Commission’s Determination As discussed further under Factor 4: Historic Significance, the Board understood the argument made by Baker related to the comments from SHPO about the process for reevaluation of a National Register structure. To the point about the ensemble being taken as a whole, the Final Order of the Board references testimony from Carter that made this point. While Baker disagrees with the conclusion reached by the Board, consideration was given under this factor and Baker’s appeal statement does not identify a clear reason as to how the Board erred. Factor 3: Age Baker notes that the property is 108 years in age and is not the oldest or newest of the Chase properties. Baker also notes that National Register properties must typically be 50 years in age to be considered significant. Following this, Baker goes on to discuss landscape features asserting that the Board did not provide appropriate consideration to the landscape and that taken with its age, the property should be preserved. Final Order Findings The Final Order of the Historic Review Board provides findings which address testimony from interested parties and discusses the applicant’s submittal. While the Board considered testimony from opponents, the Board ultimately found that the age of the house did not warrant preservation when balancing other factors. The full findings of the Board are included in Attachment A. Planning Commission’s Determination Baker’s discussion of age offers no reason as to why the Board’s consideration of this factor was unreasonable or in error. Additionally, the points about landscaping appear to be better related to factors other than age.