Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Review Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oregon City to advance code and policy changes clarifying historic‑review triggers, easing some small‑dwelling reviews
Summary
City planning staff and the Historic Review Board asked commissioners to move a package of code amendments and Policy 13 toward legislative adoption; changes clarify the 30% addition trigger (capped at 700 sq ft), exclude ground‑floor rear decks accessed from grade, and create staff‑level pathways for certain detached dwellings and ADUs.
City planning staff and members of the Historic Review Board on April 1 presented a package of code changes and a new HRB Policy 13 intended to clarify when proposed work in Oregon City’s historic conservation districts must go before the Historic Review Board and when it can be handled at the staff level.
Senior planner Christina Robertson Gardner told the commission the project grew out of neighborhood concerns dating to 2019 about the 30% addition trigger that determines whether a project requires a type‑III Historic Review Board public hearing. "We requested direction from the board and you sent us away and said work on your implementation code and documents and we're back," Gardner said, summarizing the board’s work and asking the commission for direction to proceed to the legislative adoption process.
The draft changes list specific triggers rather than relying solely on a percentage calculation, adopt the municipal code’s existing footprint definition for measuring additions, and cap the 30% calculation at 700 square feet so very large structures cannot escape review by virtue of a percentage formula. Staff also said that ground‑floor rear decks accessed from the ground floor would not require Historic Review Board review, while new upper‑story decks and enclosed rear additions would be included in the 30% calculation.
Tim Powell, chair of the Historic Review Board, described months of board and consultant work and neighborhood outreach and said the board’s goal was to "make the process of new construction in the conservation district efficient, flexible, and reasonable." HRB vice chair Julia Samrock Fulkerson, an architectural historian, said the board sought solutions that balanced aesthetics, cost and the district’s historic character.
Commissioners pressed staff for a clearer cross‑reference to building‑permit thresholds and how height is measured. Staff said the city measures height at the midpoint of a roof peak to the bottom of the eaves and noted a one‑page height‑measurement sheet is available in the planning office. Commissioners asked staff to add a clear note directing applicants to consult the building department for permit thresholds (for example, accessory structures in certain size ranges require building‑department review). Gardner said staff would add that caveat.
Staff also explained the process for adoption: Municipal Code changes will come forward as an ordinance and the Historic Review Board policies will be adopted by resolution when the item advances to a legislative hearing. After discussion the commission indicated consensus to move the package forward with the minor clarifications noted.
What happens next: staff will revise the draft to add the requested cross‑references and clarifications and return the package to the commission for a legislative hearing where ordinance and resolution adoption would be considered.
