Historic Review Board - July 9, 2026

Agenda

1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
   This is an opportunity for attendees to provide comment to an item that is not on the agenda.

3. PROJECT PRESENTATION

   1. Z0193-26 – For the 160 sqft shed on the SW corner of 2 acre parcel that contains the Mark Prairie Schoolhouse.
   2. Z0195-26 – For the enclosure of the existing carport to convert it to a garage for the Isabelle Rupert House. And
   3. Z0501-25 – For the demolition of the existing office building that was converted from the Supervisor’s home to offices in the 1950s and added onto in the late 1980s. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife proposes to replace the existing structure with a new office building structure in the same location on the fish hatchery site.

   Staff contact: Joy Fields; JFields@clackamas.us; 503-742-4510

4. OTHER BUSINESS 
5. UPCOMING REVIEWS
6. ADJOURN 

‡ Attachments

Z0193-26 Staff Recommendation

This document represents the Staff Recommendation on a Land Use Application requesting the review of a proposed storage building.

SECTION 1 – SUMMARY

DATE: June 25, 2026

CASE FILE NO.: Z0193-26

STAFF CONTACT: Joy Fields, jfields@clackamas.us; (503) 742-4510

LOCATION and Tax Lot: 7528 S MARK RD. Tax Map 41E20, Tax Lot 0400.

Applicant: Mark Prairie Historical Society

Owner of Property: Mark Prairie Historical Society

Zoning: Exclusive Farm Use (EFU and Historic Landmark;

CITIZENS PLANNING ORGANIZATION: None

PROPOSAL: The applicants propose to build a 160 sqft shed on the SW corner of 2 acre parcel that contains the Mark Prairie Schoolhouse.

APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: This application is subject to Clackamas County Zoning and Development Ordinance (ZDO) Sections(s) 202, 401, 707.01, 707.02, 707.04, 707.05, 707.06 and 1307.

Location map

Site Plans

Proposed Elevations

BACKGROUND:

Excerpt from 1997 land use file, Z1727-97, that resulted in the designated of the site as a local Historic Landmark through Board Order No. 98-27: “The Marks Prairie School and Monument are set back from the road on a level site that is covered with mature Oak trees. The area is primarily in agricultural use. The school house, built c. 1900 is composed of a single rectangular volume with lap siding and cornerboards with rake boards and frieze. The Mark Prairie School and monument are significant as a fine example of a turn of the century school house and for its association with the Mark family and the Mark Prairie Community.”

The historic structure had one of the mature trees fall on the roof and the restoration effort was approved by the Historic Review Board through land use file Z0522-21. The completed work has received awards and recognition from historic preservation groups in Oregon.

The proposal is to add a small, detached storage shed on the property. The addition of the structure is considered new construction on the historic landmark and is being reviewed for compliance with the zoning requirements.

Site Description: Located on the south side of Mark Rd on a flat lot with mature deciduous trees. The aerial image below has the contour lines in white and is oriented from Mark Road so the top is south:

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning and Zoning Staff finds that, based on the findings below, the subject site is eligible for the modification of the pool house design, although conditions of approval may be needed.

Applicable Criteria And Findings: Sections 707.01, 707.04, 707.05, and 707.06(C) provide the criteria used to determine how the Historic Preservation Overlay zone are applied to Historic Landmarks. Section 1307 provides the process by which the application is reviewed.

Section 707.02 APPLICABILITY

A. Section 707 applies to designated Historic Landmarks, Historic Districts, and Historic Corridors

Finding: The whole property at 7528 S MARK RD, Canby, 97013 is designated as a local historic landmark. This criterion is met.

Section 707.04 Uses Permitted

A. Primary Uses: A Historic Landmark or properties within a Historic District or Historic Corridor may be used for any use which is allowed in the underlying zoning district, including home occupations, provided such use is not detrimental to the preservation of the historic resource, subject to the specific requirements for the use, and all other requirements of Section 707.

Finding: The use of the subject property for a community center and Historic schoolhouse pre-dates the EFU zoning and the addition of a detached accessory structure does not change the use of the property. This criterion is met.

Section 707.05 Historic Review Board

A Historic Review Board shall be established pursuant to Subsection 1307.03 and shall have the following responsibilities:

C. Review and make recommendations on all proposed new construction within a Historic District or Corridor, or on property on which a Historic Landmark is located, subject to Subsection 707.06;

Finding: Adding structures, such as the small storage shed structure, is considered new construction because it does not yet exist on the site. Thus, the Historic Review Board is reviewing and providing recommendations to staff regarding Z0193-26. This criterion is met.

707.06 THE REVIEW PROCESS

Section 707.06. C 4. New Construction: Applications for proposed structures on a Historic Landmark site, or within a Historic District or Historic Corridor shall be reviewed as Type II applications pursuant to Section 1307. Approval of an application shall be subject to the following criteria:

a. The design of the proposed structure is compatible with the design of the landmark building(s) on the site or in the district or corridor considering scale, style, height, and architectural detail, materials, and colors.

Finding: The proposed storage shed is considered new construction. The scale, height, shed roof, board and cedar lap siding, and color are compatible with the historic character of the site and the Mark Prairie Schoolhouse. As the applicant states in the application:

“The shed will have a concrete floor and entry ramp, cedar lap siding to match the 1879 Schoolhouse, a 3:12 shed roof with corrugated metal roofing to match the decommissioned c1930, WPA-built outhouse and c2000 pumphouse.

Staff find that because the design of the historic schoolhouse was considered and the shed is a similar size and location to the other accessory structures, the storage shed is compatible with the design of the historic landmark. This criterion is met.

b. The location and orientation of the new structure on the site is consistent with the typical location and orientation of similar structures on the site or within the district or corridor, considering setbacks, distances between structures, location of entrances, and similar siting considerations.

Finding: The applicant describes the location as:

“The shed will be located in the back corner of the property, visually placed behind the primary schoolhouse, and aligned with the circa-1930s WPA-built, decommissioned outhouse along the west property line and the circca-2000 pump house along the south property line. It will be sited with the entry doors facing the rear corner of the Schoolhouse and set back the required 10 feet from south and west property lines. It will be approximately 40 feet from the Schoolhouse and 80 feet from each the outhouse and pump house.”

Therefore, the orientation, location, setbacks, and location of entrances are consistent with the location and orientation of similar accessory structures on subject property and is distanced appropriately from the historic schoolhouse. This criterion is met.

c. Changes to yard areas including planters, fences, ponds, walkways and landscape materials should be compatible with the overall historic setting.

d. Scale of commercial use: Individual permitted uses shall be of a scale appropriate to serve properties surrounding the historic overlay.

Finding: The small scale, of the storage shed will limit the impact to the year areas and reduce the impact from the overall historic setting. There are no changes to the historic structure, proposed in this application.

None of the proposed alterations or new construction change the use of the property and do not change the commercial scale of the use

Therefore, staff find the new construction criterion to be met.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

The Planning and Zoning Staff finds that the placement of a new 160sqft wooden storage shed on the southwest corner of the property does not compromise the historic integrity of the site and should be allowed on this Clackamas County Historic Landmark. Based on the above analysis of the ordinance standards, staff recommends approval of the storage shed on this property.

Z0195-26 Staff Recommendation

This document represents the Staff Recommendation on a Land Use Application requesting the review of the enclosure of an existing carport.

SECTION 1 – SUMMARY

DATE: June 25, 2026

CASE FILE NO.: Z0195-26

STAFF CONTACT: Joy Fields, jfields@clackamas.us; (503) 742-4510

LOCATION and Tax Lot: 2323 SE CREIGHTON AVE. Tax Map 21E12BC, Tax Lot 04201.

Applicant: Nathan Wellborn

Owner of Property: Nathan & Brandi Wellborn

Zoning: Low Density Residential Use (R-7 and Historic Landmark);

CITIZENS PLANNING ORGANIZATION: Oak Grove- contact@oakgrovecpo.org

PROPOSAL: The applicants propose to enclose an existing carport adjacent to the Isabelle Rupert House.

APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: This application is subject to Clackamas County Zoning and Development Ordinance (ZDO) Sections(s) 202, 401, 707.01, 707.02, 707.04,

707.05, 707.06 and 1307.

Location Map

Proposed Materials

Site Plan

Proposed Elevation

Proposed Floor Plan

BACKGROUND:

Excerpt from 2013 land use file, Z0270-13, that resulted in the designated of the site as a local Historic Landmark: “The Isabelle Rupert House is designed in the Vernacular-Colonial Revival Style and is one-and-a-half stories with a clipped gable roof. The original windows are one-over-one elongated double-hung sash with architrave molding. The main entrance has a hip roof supported by slender Doric Columns which are set on concrete bases. It is also noted that a building had been attached to the original structure.”

The application materials indicate that the applicants are requesting to completely enclose the existing carport that is presumed to be the building that “had been attached to the original structure.” The proposal adds no additional footprint to the existing carport.

Site Description: Located on the northwest corner of Creighton Ave and Sarah Ln on a flat lot with mature deciduous trees. As a neighbor provided in support of the application “With the plant growth the carport is barely visible from the street.” See the image below:

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning and Zoning Staff finds that, based on the findings below, the subject site is eligible for the modification of the carport.

Applicable Criteria And Findings: Sections 707.01, 707.02, 707.04, 707.05, and 707.06 provide the criteria used to determine how the Historic Preservation Overlay zone are applied to Historic Landmarks. Section 1307 provides the process by which the application is reviewed.

Section 707.02 APPLICABILITY

A. Section 707 applies to designated Historic Landmarks, Historic Districts, and Historic Corridors

Finding: The whole property at 2323 SE CREIGHTON AVE, Milwaukie, 97267 is designated as a local historic landmark. This criterion is met.

Section 707.04 Uses Permitted

A. Primary Uses: A Historic Landmark or properties within a Historic District or Historic Corridor may be used for any use which is allowed in the underlying zoning district, including home occupations, provided such use is not detrimental to the preservation of the historic resource, subject to the specific requirements for the use, and all other requirements of Section 707.

Finding: The use of the subject property for residential use and accessory garage is an allowed use in the underlying Urban Low Density Residential R-7 District. This criterion is met.

Section 707.05 Historic Review Board

A Historic Review Board shall be established pursuant to Subsection 1307.03 and shall have the following responsibilities:

C. Review and make recommendations on all proposed new construction within a Historic District or Corridor, or on property on which a Historic Landmark is located, subject to Subsection 707.06;

Finding: Adding or modifying existing structures, such as the carport, is considered a Major alteration to the historic landmark because it is changing an existing structure by adding full walls. Thus, the Historic Review Board is reviewing and providing recommendations to staff regarding Z0195-26. This criterion is met.

707.06 THE REVIEW PROCESS

Section 707.06. C 3. Major Alterations: Major alterations shall be reviewed as Type II applications pursuant to Section 1307. Approval of an application for a major alteration shall be subject to the following criteria for rehabilitation:

a. 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.

Finding: The proposed enclosure of the existing carport does not change the use or purpose of the Historic Landmark. This criterion is met.

b. 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.

c. 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.

Finding: The carport is considered an addition to the historic home. The applicant states: “By enclosing the garage we will be able to match the siding to the main house, we plan to make all the siding ourselves, out of wood and not composite materials. As the main house is built from natural materials.”

The proposal includes no changes to the historic structure or the landscaping. The existing partially enclosed carport is not a feature that adds historical significance or characteristics to the property. Although the material the applicant is proposing to use for enclosing the carport is natural, the construction will follow current practices and will not create a false sense of historical development. The applicant is not proposing to add conjectural features or architectural elements from the historic house to the carport. This criterion is met.

d. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.

e. Distinctive features, finished, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.

f. 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.

Finding: The attached carport was mentioned in the land use file that designated the site as a historic landmark in 2013. There is no indication in the record that the carport has existed on the site for more than 50 years. Thus, staff do not consider the carport to be a structure that has acquired historic significance. There are no distinctive features on the existing carport. The proposal includes no changes to the historic home and thus there will be no impact to distinctive features, finishes, or construction techniques that led to this historic site being designated a historic landmark. There are no changes proposed to the historic features of the home or the site. These criteria are met.

g. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the least damaging or gentlest means possible.

h. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.

i. 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.

j. 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, including historic plant materials, and its environment would be unimpaired.

Finding: The proposal includes no ground disturbance that could impact archeological resources. The proposal includes no physical treatments for cleaning the historic home. The proposed addition is for an attached carport that was considered not contributing to the historic character of the site in the land use file that designated the site as a historic landmark in 2013. If the carport is enclosed and becomes the garage as the applicant proposes, it can be removed in the future without affecting the integrity of the historic property.

Therefore, staff find the major alteration criterion to be met.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

The Planning and Zoning Staff finds that the enclosure of the carport and conversion of the attached structure to a garage on the eastern corner of the historic structure does not compromise the historic integrity of the site and should be allowed on this Clackamas County Historic Landmark. Based on the above analysis of the ordinance standards, staff recommends approval of the carport enclosure on this property.

Staff Recommendation to Historic Review Board

This document represents the Staff Recommendation on a Land Use Application requesting the review of changes to the Fish Hatchery site.

SECTION 1 – SUMMARY

DATE:  July 1, 2026

CASE FILE NO.:   Z0501-25

STAFF CONTACT:  Joy Fields, jfields@clackamas.us; (503) 742-4510

LOCATION and Tax Lot:  17330 SE EVELYN ST. Tax Map 22E16A, Tax Lot 01080.

Applicant: DAO Architects

Owner of Property: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Zoning: General Industrial, and Historic Landmark; Other portions of the Historic Landmark property outside of this application area are zoned Exclusive Farm Use.

CITIZENS PLANNING ORGANIZATION:  Clackamas - INACTIVE

PROPOSAL:  The applicants propose to remove the 1911 historic structure and replace it with a modern 2-story office building designed to be compatible with historic aesthetics. The original application also indicated two other structures were proposed for removal or demolition.  

APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA:  This application is subject to Clackamas County Zoning and Development Ordinance (ZDO) Sections(s) 202, 602, 707.01, 707.04, 707.05, 707.06 and 1307.

Location Map

Site Plans

Designation File Site Plan:

2023 Historic Survey Site Plan:

Application Site Plan:

Existing Elevations

Existing Elevations

Proposed Elevations

BACKGROUND:

In the file that designated the site a local Historic Landmark they note "The facility consists of two residential buildings (now converted for office use) and 14 utilitarian buildings, many of which were constructed during the early part of the twentieth century." The two residential structures, the Annex, and the old hatchery building were described in detail in the file. In the scoring of the historic significance, the following aspects of the site were scored the highest: the rarity of the structures, the setting, the contribution to the character and activities that made a significant contribution to the community, state, along with the association and "illustrative of, broad patterns of cultural, social, political, economic, or industrial history of the community, state, or nation." 

The applicant provided a 2023 survey of the historic significance of the site based on the criteria for listing a structure on the National Register of Historic Places. The survey generally found that many of the structures have been modified through time so they do not have the architectural integrity of the original construction period. However, the Annex and Building 5 retained the architectural integrity. The old hatchery building is Building 4 and the survey included the following as part of the evaluation for the old hatchery building: "The building embodies the distinctive characteristics of an early twentieth century hatchery building, with some added characteristics of the Craftsman style, such as triangular brackets and exposed rafter tails. The building also featured prism-glass windows, which were considered an innovative addition to hatchery buildings from the period; however, many of these have been lost and replaced (Oregon Daily Journal 1916)."  

Building 2, the previous Superintendent's residence that is proposed for demolition only retained the integrity of location and the 2023 survey states

"From its date of construction (ca. 1911), building 03543 retains integrity of location as it sits on its original footprint. The integrity of setting, feeling, and association of the building is diminished: the area to the north of the building originally consisted of large agricultural fields, with concrete reservoirs and the Dedman residence once located to the west. Additionally, the building originally served as a residence to house staff working at the hatchery; it is now used as office space. The building's integrity of design, materials, and workmanship is diminished due to replacement of the main door and some of the windows (including a character defining bay window), the addition of triangular brackets on the facade, and the addition of the visitor's door."

Building 12 (03554) built in 1911 and Building 13 (03553) built in 1965 are both on the lower portion of the property and are also proposed for demolition. They are described as the pathology lab and pathology building used for cold storage and neither warranted individual description in the original historic landmark designation file.

The 2023 survey included the following descriptions: "building 03553 retains integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association as it sits on its original footprint and continues to be a support building related to fish and wildlife. The building retains integrity of design, materials, and workmanship, aside from the small addition joining it to building 03554 to the south." 

Therefore the structure proposed for moving or demolition has been significantly modified through time with the architecture and use changing.  

Previous land use decisions include:

A. Z0889-04 – Approval to place an RV for host as a temporary use that was renewed through Z0255-08. This is near Building 1 on the site plan.

B. Z0734-88 – Approved an addition to the historic caretaker's residence that is the subject of this request for removal and demolition.

C.   Z0860-86 – Designated the site as a local historic landmark with Board approval through Order No. 87-1394.

D.   Z0171-82 – Approved the construction of the boat house

Site Description: Located at the end of Fish Hatchery road the property contains 6.14 acres that is bisected by a ridge that separates the upper portion from the lower portion. The upper portion currently contains the pad where the RV host accommodation used to be located, the parking lot and the historic caretakers residence that has been modified to be an office building. The lower portion of the property contains the Annex, the Historic Hatchery, the boat house and other structures previously used for fish hatchery purposes.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 

The Planning and Zoning Staff finds that, based on the findings below, the subject site is eligible for the move or demolition of the historic Superintendent's Residence and current office building, although conditions of approval or suspension may be needed.

Applicable Criteria And Findings:  Sections 707.01, 707.04, 707.05, and 707.06(C) provide the criteria used to determine how the Historic Preservation Overlay zone are applied to Historic Landmarks.  Section 1307 provides the process by which the application is reviewed. 

Section 707.02 APPLICABILITY

A. Section 707 applies to designated Historic Landmarks, Historic Districts, and Historic Corridors

Finding: The upper portion where the proposed new parking and office building is proposed is a small portion of a designated Historic Landmark that covers 4.73 acres of the 6+ acre site. The lower portion of the 4.73 acre landmark contains the supporting structures including the Annex and old Hatchery buildings as well as the pathology building and lab that are also slated for removal. This criterion is met.

Section 707.04 Uses Permitted

A. Primary Uses: A Historic Landmark or properties within a Historic District or Historic Corridor may be used for any use which is allowed in the underlying zoning district, including home occupations, provided such use is not detrimental to the preservation of the historic resource, subject to the specific requirements for the use, and all other requirements of Section 707.

Finding: The use of the subject property for the Oregon Fish and Wildlife offices have occurred onsite since prior to the designation as a local historic landmark. The nonconforming nature of the office building and the location of the office building will be verified through Z0499-25. This criterion is met.

Section 707.05 Historic Review Board

A Historic Review Board shall be established pursuant to Subsection 1307.03 and

shall have the following responsibilities:

C. Review and make recommendations on all proposed new construction within a Historic District or Corridor, or on property on which a Historic Landmark is located, subject to Subsection 707.06;

Finding: Removing or demolishing structures, such as the office building and the new construction of the replacement office structure requires review by the Historic Review Board. The Historic Review Board is reviewing and providing recommendations to staff regarding Z0501-25. This criterion is met.

707.06 THE REVIEW PROCESS

Section 707.06. C 4. New Construction: Applications for proposed structures on a Historic Landmark site, or within a Historic District or Historic Corridor shall be reviewed as Type II applications pursuant to Section 1307. Approval of an application shall be subject to the following criteria:

a. The design of the proposed structure is compatible with the design of the landmark building(s) on the site or in the district or corridor considering scale, style, height, and architectural detail, materials, and colors.

Finding: The proposed new office building is considered new construction. The height, gabled roof, board and batten siding, and color seem to be compatible with the proposed office use and the historic character of the site, especially since the other historic buildings are located in the lower portion of the site with great distance from the proposed new office building. Staff find that because the proposed office building is in the same location as the office building proposed for removal, the extent and orientation is suitable. Staff are unsure about the roof design and look forward to the discussion from the Historic Review Board.

In Z0306-24 the Historic Review Board recommended that the Gabled porch roof over the entrance be enclosed. Thus, if appropriate for the style of the building, staff is recommending a similar condition of approval for the new office building for consistency if the enclosure is consistent with the historic character of the fish hatchery.

This criterion can be met with conditions.

b. The location and orientation of the new structure on the site is consistent with the typical location and orientation of similar structures on the site or within the district or corridor, considering setbacks, distances between structures, location of entrances, and similar siting considerations.

Finding: The orientation is in line with the current office building proposed for removal. The parking lot and entrance locations are also similar. Staff find that the replacement of the office building in the same location ensures that the distance between structures, orientation, location of entrances and similar siting considerations are consistent with the local historic landmark. This criterion is met.

c. Changes to yard areas including planters, fences, ponds, walkways and landscape materials should be compatible with the overall historic setting.

d. Scale of commercial use: Individual permitted uses shall be of a scale appropriate to serve properties surrounding the historic overlay.

Finding: The applicant designed the parking lot and access to retain most of the existing trees and mature landscaping on site. In the land use file that designated the site as a historic landmark, no walkways or specific landscape features were called out.

There are no changes to the historic structures in the lower portion of the property except for building 12 and 13 that were also identified for demolition in the original application.

The scale of the office use is remaining the same with staff currently working in buildings dispersed through the site congregating in one structure. The addition of the conference room is the only aspect of the proposed building that staff find could increase the scale of the use because it would allow off-site agencies and potentially the public to congregate on site for the use of the conference room.

Therefore, staff find the new construction criterion to be met with conditions.

D. Moving or Demolition of a Historic Landmark or Contributing Resource:  No building identified as a primary, secondary, or contributing structure within a Historic District or Corridor, or designated as a Historic Landmark, shall be intentionally moved or demolished, unless approval is granted pursuant to Subsection 707.06(D).  Moving or demolition of a Historic Landmark or Contributing Resource shall be reviewed as a Type II application pursuant to Section 1307.  In addition:

1. The applicant shall prepare and submit a plan for preservation of the Historic Landmark prior to filing an application for moving or demolition.

a. The preservation plan shall include a narrative describing how the applicant will accomplish the following:

i. Advertise the resource in local, regional, and historic preservation newspapers of general circulation in the area once per week during the pre-application period and shall provide evidence of such advertising;

ii. Give public notice by placing a sign on the subject property informing the public of intended action which will remove or demolish the structure and including the County department and telephone number to call for further information.  The sign shall remain on the subject property until a permit is issued.;

iii. Prepare and make available information related to the history and sale of the subject property to all who inquire;

iv. Provide information regarding the proposed use for the Historic Landmark site; and

v. Keep a record of the parties who have expressed an interest in purchasing or relocating the structure.  To ensure that an adequate effort has been made to secure a relocation site, the applicant shall provide a list of property locations and owners who were contacted regarding purchase of a relocation site.

b. Following receipt of the preservation plan, the Planning Director shall issue a media release to local and state newspapers of general circulation in the County.  The media release shall include, but not be limited to, a description of the significance of the Historic Landmark, the reasons for the proposed moving or demolition, and the possible options for preserving the Historic Landmark.

Finding: The applicant indicated how they would go about meeting the preservation plan requirements and thus it appears that they have met the following requirement "include a narrative describing how the applicant will accomplish the following".

The applicant has not yet advertised the structures for sale or posted the sign on the property. Staff interpret the pre-application period to be the period between the pre-application conference and the submittal of the application. During that time the code requires that the applicant "Advertise the resource in local, regional, and historic preservation newspapers of general circulation in the area once per week during the pre-application period and shall provide evidence of such advertising;". The language above is unclear. The applicants say how they will meet the preservation plan requirement but have not yet done it. The Planning Director has issued a media release about this application because the application included a narrative describing how the applicant will accomplish the items required in a preservation plan.

Staff find that it would be appropriate to suspend the application for 30 days to allow the applicant to move forward with the preservation plan prior to receiving the land use approval for demolishing the structure.

This criterion could be met with a condition. 

2. Approval of an application to move a Historic Landmark or contributing resource shall be subject to the following criteria:

Finding: The applicant is not proposing to move the historic structure to a new location. These criteria are not applicable.

3. The review authority for an application to demolish a Historic Landmark or contributing resource within a Historic District or Historic Corridor shall consider the following:

a. All plans, drawings, and photographs submitted by the applicant;

b. Information presented at the public hearing concerning the proposed work; proposal;

c.  The Comprehensive Plan;

Finding: The applicant provided plans, and photographs for consideration. The Historic Review Board will hold a public hearing on July 9th to review the proposed work. Below is an excerpt from the applicant regarding compliance with the Comprehensive Plan:

"9.C.6 Develop policies and programs to protect historic resources and minimize the conflicts.

Response: The development of a modern office facility designed to accommodate many of the employees on site will leave intact the campus' few contributing architectural resources. These structures will be protected from further loss of integrity that is caused by ad hoc modifications made to support uses they were never designed for. Along with the various structures that were identified as contributing to the historical significance of the site, the verdant grounds and mature landscape were also cited in the original historic application as contributing to the significance of the property. The proposal preserves most of this landscape while enhancing it with additional planting and irrigation.

9.C.8 Pursue options and incentives to allow productive, reasonable use, and adaptive reuse of historic properties.

Response: Options and incentives to allow productive, reasonable use, and adaptive reuse have been analyzed and considered. Relocation of the resource proposed for demolition to a location off-site is being considered. Relocation on-site is not possible without the elimination of mature historically significant trees or by moving to an existing parking area, which will make it infeasible to meet the County's parking requirements.

Both the historic fish hatchery and the former supervisor's residence are uses that no longer exist on the historic site. The proposal seeks to continue the adaptive reuse of this historic fish hatchery site as an office and customer service center that compliments the remaining historic structures while paying homage to the craftsman style of the former residence being replaced. In this way the historic site and most structures will be preserved."

Staff find that the analysis of the proposal against the policies of the Comprehensive Plan are adequate to show how the project complies with the vision provided.

These criteria are met.

d. The purposes of Section 707 as set forth in Subsection 707.01;

Finding: The applicant addresses each part of Subsection 707.01 on page 124 of the additional submittal materials. Staff find that the Superintendent's Office has been modified through the years and is found to no longer have the integrity of the original structure as discussed in the 2023 historic survey. The pictures provided show that currently the office is crowded and cramped and would not be wheelchair accessible. Additionally, the use of a ladder out the back window for egress concerns staff due to the lack of safety it provides. The continued use of the structure for offices is not adequate for ODFW's need as exemplified by the narrative and pictures in the application. One piece that is highlighted in the application is that the history of the site will be displayed in a kiosk to encourage public awareness of the site's history as stated by the applicant:

E. Encourage public knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the county's history and culture; Response: The proposal will encourage public knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the County's history and culture by the installation of the proposed information kiosk describing the history of the site, and by allowing the ODFW to continue its mission to protect and enhance Oregon's fish, wildlife and their habitats for the use and enjoyment by present and future generations.

This criterion is met.

e. The criteria used in the original designation of the Historic Landmark, Historic District, or Historic Corridor in which the property under consideration is situated;

Finding: The designating file call out four structures including two residences, the Annex and the Old hatchery. The Superintendent's Residence that is the current office building proposed for removal or demolition has been modified with the replacement of the door and windows and the addition approved in the late 1980s. As such, the integrity of the structure was found to be lacking in the 2023 survey. No modifications are proposed for the other three buildings. The second residence mentioned in the designating file is Building 03550 (Building 15; Zimmer Office) that is also not modified by the proposal. The scoring of the historic significance of the site in the original designation file found the following aspects of the site scored the highest: the rarity of the structures, the setting, the contribution to the character and activities that made a significant contribution to the community, state, along with the association and "illustrative of, broad patterns of cultural, social, political, economic, or industrial history of the community, state, or nation."  The 1911 bungalow residence is not as rare as the Old Hatchery or Annex building and even with the removal of the residence/office building the contribution the site made to the pattern of history is retained along with the historic structures on the lower portion of the site and the continued use by a fish and wildlife organization.

This criterion is met.

f.   The historical and architectural style, the general design, arrangement, materials of the structure in question, or its appurtenant fixtures; the relationship of such features to the other buildings within the district or corridor; and the position of the building in relation to public rights-of-way and to other buildings and structures in the area;

Finding: The general arrangement, materials of the structure and relationship to other buildings on the historic site are appropriate. Staff look forward to the Historic Review Board's Discussion of the roof design and pitch as well as the entry way overhang to determine if the architectural style proposed is compatible with the historic landmark.

More discussion is needed.

g. The effects of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and use of the district or corridor which cause it to possess a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value;

h. Whether suspension of the proposed demolition will involve substantial hardship to the applicant, and whether approval of the request would act to the substantial detriment of the public welfare and would be contrary to the intent and purposes of Section 707; and

i.   When applicable, the findings of the building official in determining the status of the subject building as a dangerous building under County Code Chapter 9.01, Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, and the feasibility of correcting the deficiencies to meet the requirements of the building official rather than demolishing the building.

Finding: Staff agree with the applicant's assertion that "Like above, the replacement of one building on the campus will not reduce the historic significance of the property. ODFW's contribution to the community will not be reduced by the demolition and replacement of the former Superintendent's Residence and will arguably position ODFW to contribute more to the community and customers it serves. The association to the cultural and industrial history of the site will be enhanced by the new building's interpretive exhibits, as well as its increased service capability." and "Response: Because of topography, historically significant specimen trees, and the fact that most of the site is in the Clackamas River floodplain, area for any new development is very limited. Preservation of the resource, and construction of an additional building onto the site that meets the department's needs along with code-required parking is not possible."

These criteria are met.

4. The application may be approved in consideration of Subsections 707.06(D)(2) and (3).

5. The application may be suspended, if, in the interest of preserving historic values for public benefit, the building should not be moved or demolished.

6. If the application is suspended, the written decision shall be transmitted to the building official along with a request that the enforcement of any applicable Notice and Order of the building official be stayed during the pendency of an appeal, or for a period of not more than 60 days from the date of the suspension decision.  During this stay of moving or demolition, the following actions may be taken:

a. The building official may require the owner or other party responsible for the subject building to take appropriate actions, other than demolition, to protect the public from hazardous conditions associated with the building.

b. The applicant may be required to continue to carry out the pre-application plan activities through the entire stay of moving or demolition.

c.  The Historic Review Board may research programs or projects underway which could result in public or private acquisition of the subject building and site, and assess the potential for the success of these programs or projects.

i. If the Historic Review Board determines that there are reasonable grounds to believe that such program or project may be successful, it may extend the suspension period up to 30 additional days per extension, not to exceed a total of 120 days from the date of the decision suspending the application.

ii. If the Historic Review Board determines that all such programs or projects are unlikely to be successful, and the applicant has not withdrawn his application or taken appropriate alternative action to correct the hazards associated with the subject building as provided in a Notice and Order of the building official, then, at the end of the suspension period, the Planning Director may issue a permit for moving or demolition, subject to all other applicable regulations.

Finding: Staff look forward to learning whether the Historic Review Board recommends suspending this application to allow the applicant to successfully advertise the resource for sale prior to the issuance of a land use decision.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

The Planning and Zoning Staff finds that the replacement of the office building with property noticing of the sale of the structure, and enclosure of the gabled roof supports ensure the proposed use is compatible with the historic resource and consistent with the code and previous approvals.