<br />Final Order: The Harry and Etta Chase House | HDM 21-1/ HA 21-3/ ARB 21-2 <br /> <br />Factor 4: Historic significance <br />Baker highlights comments that were made by SHPO about the process that should be used to contest <br />a National Register nomination. Following this, Baker asserts that the Chase Gardens Residential <br />Grouping is truly unique and there is not another similar property on the National Register in Oregon, <br />and likely the Pacific Northwest. <br /> <br />Final Order Findings <br />The Final Order of the Historic Review Board provides findings which address testimony from interested <br />parties and discusses the applicant’s submittal. While the Board considered testimony from opponents, <br />the Board ultimately found that the arguments raised by the applicant were sufficient to allow <br />demolition when balancing this factor with others. The Board’s conclusion relied upon information <br />provided by Heritage Consulting for the application which provided a number of arguments related to <br />this factor. An item of note under this factor was the lack of clarity in the nomination over whether the <br />landscape was intended to be a contributing resource. The full findings of the Board are included in <br />Attachment A. <br /> <br />Planning Commission’s Determination <br />The testimony from SHPO referenced by Baker explains the process for reevaluating whether a property <br />should be on the National Register. The applicant’s request does not contest the status of the Harry and <br />Etta Chase House as being a National Register resource, but rather, is a request to demolish the building. <br />This point is discussed by the Final Order of the Board, making it clear that the Board understood this <br />argument and made a decision that this factor did not require preservation of the building. Additionally, <br />Baker’s argument about rarity does not add additional analysis or points that make it clear how the <br />Board’s decision was in error. <br /> <br />Factor 5: Value to the community <br />Baker argues that the Final Order omits consideration of the video tour submitted in testimony on March <br />23, 2022. Baker states that the video tour contradicts the premise that the properties are screened from <br />the street and not visually significant. In discussing the video, Baker notes that the narrator is Whitey <br />Lueck who is a professor of Landscape Architecture at the University of Oregon and is a landscape expert <br />and often takes students to the property for tours due to the landscape and large trees. <br /> <br />Final Order Findings <br />The Final Order of the Historic Review Board provides findings which address testimony from interested <br />parties and discusses the applicant’s submittal. While the Board considered testimony from opponents, <br />the Board ultimately found that the arguments raised by the applicant were sufficient to allow <br />demolition when balancing this factor with others. One noted argument relates to the location of the <br />house in a high-density residential neighborhood, which the applicant asserted further diminishes the <br />value of the house to the community as a bungalow residence. The full findings of the Board are included <br />in Attachment A. <br /> <br />Planning Commission’s Determination <br />To the extent that the Final Order does not specifically call out the video, it does not mean that the Board <br />failed to meet their obligation to consider the information provided. The Planning Commission finds that <br />the Board was provided the full record of the application, which included the video mentioned by Baker.