Balancing preservation and prerogative in Irvington

Bagwell residence, Irvington (photo by Fred Leeson)

BY FRED LEESON

Chances are good that David Bagwell didn’t anticipate the path awaiting him as he started working with a designer on plans for a two-story addition to the rear of his 1926 Dutch Colonial home in Irvington. In the end, he found himself involved in what may be a precedent-setting case for additions to residences in some other neighborhoods, as well.

Because his house sits in the nearly two-year old Irvington National Historic District, Bagwell’s plans required a historic design review by the Portland’s Bureau of Development Services.

“We worked with the city,” which approved his plan, “and we think the city is correct,” Bagwell testified before the Portland Historic Landmarks Commission this week. But the Irvington Community Association filed an appeal, contending that the city staff crafted an approval criteria that doesn’t exist in the city code.

In its written decision, the city ruled that Bagwell’s plan was acceptable because it was mostly not visible from the front of the house. Since the house itself was not a designated landmark – only a contributing element to the neighborhood historic district – the city concluded that the impact on the district, rather than the house, was the determining factor.

The city staff reached its conclusion because it believed the district was created under federal rules “based solely on an evaluation of its historical character conducted from the public right-of-way,” according to the city ruling.

Members of Irvington’s land use and historic preservation committees begged to differ. Jim Heuer, one of the preservationists who helped create the district, said photographs from the public rights-of-way were only part of the nomination material, along with “complete aesthetic statements that included more than the front.” He also noted that part of the historic district “experience” would be views of the rear of the house by people who lived nearby.

“We have to allow a certain amount of alterations,” he noted. “This is not a museum district.” But he thought the proposed 600-square foot addition was too large and too incompatible with the rest of the 1840-square foot residence. Rather than use the “drive-by” criteria, Dean Gisvold, chair of the neighborhood land-use committee, said the city should be evaluating additions to historic properties using a “hierarchy of compatibility” standard included in the city zoning code for municipally-designated landmarks and historic districts.

Under that guideline, additions are to be evaluated for compatibility with the “original resource,” then with adjacent properties and with the rest of the district. “If the interpretation of criteria is wrong, then the decision based on it is also faulty,” Gisvold testified.

After considerable discussion, the landmarks commission reached a consensus that a contributing element of a national historic district should be considered the original resource, not the entire district. This approach gives the city more discretion in judging the merits of a rear addition even it is invisible from the sidewalk. Tim Heron, director of the BDS planning staff, said the ambiguity in the city code could be remedied in a future revision.

And what of Bagwell’s planned addition? To the untrained ear, the debate over the “resource” to be considered must have seemed dense and perplexing. “It just seems to me that we have a matter of opinions” about the design of his addition, he said.

The landmarks commission seemed comfortable with the scale and massing of the proposal, but offered some suggestions about more historically-compatible window locations. Bagwell and designer Don Rouzie said they would work with the city staff and present a revised plan next month.

In the end, the homeowner is likely to win approval. And, until some future code revision clarifies the standing of individual contributing buildings in national historic districts, the city planning staff wins a better understanding of how to manage similar applications in the future.

Fred Leeson is board president of the Bosco-Milligan Foundation and its Architectural Heritage Center in Portland.

 

Advertisements

Comments

[Bill Badrick]

This is the perfect illustration of a few zealots locking down whole sections of town for their 'frozen-in-time' ideas of old-fashioned perfection , that exists only in their minds. Home Owners and their Designers should be allowed to make additions to old [too small] homes to fit modern lifestyles. This kind of "hassle by government"
will cause everyone else to just sell and move to the burbs. Leaving Designers like me without clients. Great for the Portland Economy!
The next call I get about a renovation in the city , I will ask them
how they feel about an underground window-less bunker.

[Facebook]

This appeal by the Irvington Community Association seems to be counter to the current effort to streamline the Historic Design Review process

I'd be interested in learning more details about this case, in particular the rationale behind the appeal.

Thanks,

Greg Moulliet
Keep Buckman Free

[Jim Heuer]

Just for the record, here’s some background information on the Historic Design Review case described by Fred Leeson in his blog entry. As it happens, I’m on the Irvington Historic Preservation Committee and was involved in preparing the appeal to the Landmarks Commission in this case, so I’m quite familiar with the situation.

First, let me say that the Commission sent the case back to BDS for alteration of the design to resolve some specific concerns of architectural compatibility. Those concerns, in additional to concerns about the scale and massing of the addition were the basis of the ICA’s appeal. The applicant has revised the proposed design, and I’m confident that when the Commission re-hears the case later in September, the new design will be approved.

Relative to the larger questions raised by this appeal and Mr. Leeson’s blog entry, this case was the first out of 50 Historic Design Review cases on Irvington properties to be appealed by the ICA. Many cases have gone through either with no comment from the ICA or favorable comment. In a small number of cases, concerns have been raised by the ICA Land Use Committee and/or by BDS staff, and a process of amicable discussion and review has resulted in design changes that made the applications approvable. In some instances, the ICA Committees have lobbied the City on behalf of the property owners to help clear away bureaucratic obstacles thrown up by City staff.

Across these 50 prior cases and the dozen or so currently in process, several million dollars in new construction and remodeling investment has been undertaken. New, infill developments as well as substantial single family house expansions have been involved. A couple dozen architects and building design professionals have been involved in these projects, a number of whom are on their second or third projects in the District since it was created. While the new rules may take some getting used to, the players (including the ICA committees, the architects/designers, and property owners) are adapting and dozens of successful projects have been undertaken and continue to be proposed on an almost daily basis.

In this specific case, a detailed review of the case by the ICA Land Use Committee was triggered by issues raised by neighbors of the subject property. When neighbors raise concerns about a Historic Design Review application, this typically results in much more scrutiny of designs by the Committee – as in one instance where 12 neighbors objected to a proposed design (not this case). That resulted in objections raised by the ICA shortly before the BDS staff issued an approval of the design. While the timing was unfortunate, it was unavoidable, and matters were further exacerbated by a City ruling on the case that raised issues of City Code interpretation and application which went contrary to our understanding of both the proper reading of the statutes and recent Landmarks Commission decisions. This led to an appeal by the ICA of the City’s ruling.

It is not the goal of the ICA Land Use or Historic Preservation Committees to make the Historic Design Review process more difficult. In fact the goal is and has been all along to provide property owners as much information and support as possible to help them through the process successfully. To that end, the ICA has participated in the Coalition of Historic Neighborhoods which lobbied successfully for a City review of the process, resulting in the joint BDS/BPS “Code Improvement Project” currently under way. The ICA is working with its coalition partners to press the City to clarify and simplify the process in that review as much as the State of Oregon enabling legislation (the so-called Certified Local Government statute) permits, consistent with providing reasonable protections for the District. In fact the ICA has funded and will soon publish a guide to weatherizing windows in historic districts, compiled by Portland’s Architectural Heritage Center, in support of greater clarity on what is and is not OK in historic districts throughout our metro area.

Further the ICA and its Coalition partners will continue to press the City to lower Historic Design Review fees, which, despite a recent modest reduction, continue to be the highest in the country. It is hoped that the simplified process coming from the “Code Improvement Project” will enable the BDS leadership to lower the fees on the streamlined processes to reflect the lower labor content in handling them – considering that BDS fees are expected to cover all of the Bureau’s review costs.