Z I M M E R M A N H E R I T A G E F A R M M A S T E R P L A N

G r e s h a m , O r e g o n

Z I M M E R M A N H E R I T A G E F A R M M A S T E R P L A N

G r e s h a m , O r e g o n

CI T Y O F G R E S H A M

D E P A R T M E N T O F E N V I R O N M E N T A L S E R V I C E S

P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N D I V I S I O N

&

F A I R V I E W - R O C K W O O D - W I L K E S H I S T O R I C A L S O C I E T Y

F R I E N D S O F Z I M M E R M A N H O U S E

December 1999

PLANNING CONSULTANTS

SLUSARENKO ARCHITECTURE, PC

Museum Planning + Architecture

16901 SE Van Zyl Avenue

Clackamas, OR 97015

David Slusarenko, Principal

ATLAS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

Landscape Architects & Planners

320 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 310

Portland, OR 97204

John Warner, Principal

DEAN RUNYAN ASSOCIATES

Market and Economic Research

815 SW Second Avenue, Suite 620

Portland, OR 97204

Dean Runyan, Principal

CAMAS CONSULTING

Archaeology, Ethnography, HistoryPO Box 196

Grand Coulee, Washington 99133

Jacqueline Cook, Principal

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

SERVICES

David Rouse, Director

GRESHAM PARKS AND RECREATION

DIVISION

Julee Conway, Division ManagerLora Price, Parks Planner, Project ManagerRichard Catron, Parks PlannerEugene Fabryka, Public Utility Worker IICathy Sherick, Recreation Services SupervisorChuck Fagan, Senior Services CoordinatorMichele Brouse Peoples, Special ServicesCoordinator

FAIRVIEW-ROCKWOOD-WILKES

HISTORICAL SOCIETY/

FRIENDS OF ZIMMERMAN HOUSE

Jeanette McDermid, President FRWDodi Davies, Chair FOZHTed Welty, Executive DirectorPatti Hicks, Garden Curator

Judy Lenhart, Collections Curator

Dionne Skopp, Volunteer CoordinatorNancy Hoover, Member FOZHRoy Hoover, Member FOZH

Twila Mysinger, Member FOZH

Sharon Nesbit, Member FOZH

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Tom Burnett, Founder, Philip Foster FarmNancy Earl, Cultural Heritage EducatorDavid Porter, Executive Director, End of theOregon Trail Interpretive CenterRick Read, Field Services Coordinator,Oregon History SocietyRoss Sutherland, Director, HistoricDeepwood EstateJoyce White, Tourism, Fundraising &Marketing Consulting

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

Charles Becker, MayorJack Gallagher, Council PresidentCathy Butts, City CouncilorChris Lassen, City CouncilorJohn Leuthauser, City CouncilorBob Moore, City CouncilorVicki Thompson, City Councilor

PARKS ANDRECREATION CITIZEN

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Ron Peterson, ChairGary Bisbee, Vice ChairChris Lassen, Council LiaisonSusan BoylJim HartnerJudith LevinJerry NovotnyChuck SievekingJulee Conway, Staff Liaison

HISTORIC RESOURCES ADVISORY

COMMITTEE

Kimberly Fitzgerald, Chair

Daniel Haskins, Vice Chair

Cathy Butts, Council LiaisonDick DowsettAlice Duff

Carroll Hermanson

David LindstromTracy McCoySharon Chung, Staff Liaison

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

OREGON DAIRY PRODUCTS

COMMISSION

Lorinda Moholt, Director of Communications

“There are houses which have soul and

spirit, inclined to joy or sorrow; there are

places of dignity and grandeur. There are

facades of brick and stone that hold images;

there are little silent places where, in half-

forgotten whispers industy corners, the sto-

ries of ages find voice.”

— Margaret Meade-Fetherstonhaugh

FOREWORD

Vision .......................................................................................................................... 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................... 5

INTRODUCTION

Overview ...................................................................................................................... 9Master Plan Directive ...................................................................................................... 10Master Plan Process .........................................................................................................11

CONTEXT

Regional Setting ............................................................................................................ 13Park Planning Context .................................................................................................... 13Archaeological Analysis ................................................................................................... 14Historical Research......................................................................................................... 15Site Analysis ................................................................................................................ 37Buildings and Structures Assessment ................................................................................... 43Current Management Roles and Responsibilities ..................................................................... 48Cultural Heritage Market Analysis ...................................................................................... 50

MASTER PLAN

Overview .................................................................................................................... 59Site Development .......................................................................................................... 60Master Plan Components ................................................................................................. 63

� Visitor Flow ............................................................................................................ 63

� Landscape and Open Space ......................................................................................... 66� Buildings and Structures ............................................................................................ 70� Facility Programming ................................................................................................ 75

� Interpretation-Education Program ................................................................................. 77

� Collections Management Program ................................................................................. 88

� Volunteers Program .................................................................................................. 90

IMPLEMENTATION

Project Phasing ............................................................................................................. 91

Operations & Management ............................................................................................... 97

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Master Plan Bibliography .......................................................................... 107Appendix B: Selected Plants, Lewis Clark Expedition ........................................................ 111Appendix C: Woody Plants Inventory ........................................................................... 113Appendix D: Herbaceous Plants Inventory ..................................................................... 117Appendix E: Development Costs ................................................................................. 119Appendix F: Cost Estimates ....................................................................................... 123Appendix G: Master Planning Public Process Summary ...................................................... 127Appendix H: Master Plan Photographic Sources ............................................................... 129

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Comparable Historic Facilities Description and Size ................................................... 51Table 2 Comparable Historic Facilities ............................................................................. 52Table 3 Projected Annual Attendance Demand by Phase........................................................ 95Table 4 Preliminary Staffing Budget ................................................................................ 98Table 5 City of Gresham Preliminary Operating Budget ....................................................... 101Table 6 Friends of Zimmerman House Preliminary Operating Budget ...................................... 102Table 7 Projected Revenue Factors by Phase ..................................................................... 103Table 8 Projected Cost Factors by Phase........................................................................... 104

LIST OF GRAPHIC CHARTS

Visitor Flow ................................................................................................................. 65Organization of Preliminary Interpretive Content ................................................................. 86-87

LIST OF SITE DRAWINGS

Historic Landscape Features ............................................................................................. 39

Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ 41

Master Plan.................................................................................................................. 61Gardens and Grounds National Register Site .......................................................................... 69Historic Plants Inventory ................................................................................................ 115

F O R E W O R D

1

THE VISION

Zimmerman Heritage Farm is our cultural heritage, a lastingvestige of East Multnomah County’s agricultural roots. It offersthe experience of “life as it really was” in the decades at the turn ofthe 20th century, reflecting the past through a mirror unique to theZimmerman family’s farming and domestic life.

Zimmerman Heritage Farm benefits and serves the commu-nity through cultural history educational programs and partner-ships, park and recreation programs, recreational activities, andcommunity events.

2

December 1999

Dear Interested Citizens:

As Mayor of the City of Gresham, I have come to recognizethe importance of preserving the treasured elements of Greshamthat have helped to form our community. One of those trea-sures is the historic Zimmerman Heritage Farm. This remnantof a bygone era stands today for our citizens, young and old,as a sentinel to the agricultural foundation on which oureconomy was built.

We are indebted to Isobel Zimmerman for seeing our fu-ture before we saw it ourselves. She assured that her family’scollective history and that of the region during the mid-1800swould be preserved for future generations by donation of herhouse and belongings. For this we owe her dearly, as we nowcomplete this Master Plan to pay tribute, as well as establishour common goals, to honor her generous contributions throughpreservation, interpretation, and education.

Let us work together to implement the community’s vi-sion embodied in this plan, not only for today, but for thosewho will benefit in future generations.

Honorable Mayor Charles J. BeckerCity of Gresham

3

December 1999

The image of the Zimmerman Heritage Farm is an impression of a young girl in her summer white dress step-ping from the gingerbread adorned Victorian home on the Columbia Slough. The day is warm. The fragrance ofsweet peas and roses hangs in the air. The gardens, so lovingly tended by her mother and three sisters, extend to theold Sandy Road where a watering trough quenches the thirst of passing horses and adventuring dogs.

Dairy cows can be heard in the distance. A carriage passes in front of the house on the road that was once an oldIndian trail, later an immigrant trail. The girl was Isobel Zimmerman. The house and three generations of familybelongings would be her gift to us, a legacy.

In an age when much of our heritage is being lost, this historic site has become a doorway into a time capsulethat reveals the life and times of those who arrived at the end of the Oregon Trail. In the spirit of Isobel Zimmerman’sdesire to share her family’s story and its importance to the development of this region, we have undertaken the taskof preserving and presenting all of its tales and treasures for generations to come.

We look forward to sharing this heritage through educational activities that are reminiscent of pastimes enjoyedwhen the Zimmerman girls and their friends played in the house, under the arbor, around the yard and gardens —adventures that will thrill school children coming to experience a life that is scarcely recognizable today. Visitorswill reflect on genteel Victorian life, as well as agricultural and dairy influences of local families. Special heritageevents will round out the spectrum of activities available to visitors at “the farm”.

This Master Plan lifts up the potentials and opportunities for telling a special story and continuing a wonderfullegacy. This legacy can be part of your legacy as well. On warm summer evenings, a casual picnic at “the farm”could be a welcomed respite from the rigors of the day. Family and friends can gather, as they have done for over acentury, to enjoy warm fellowship, chat on the front porch, linger in the gardens or repose with a good book in theshade of the oak tree that has sheltered many who have come before. We welcome you as a vital ingredient towarddeveloping this wonderful image and legacy.

Jeanette McDermid, PresidentFairview-Rockwood-Wilkes Historical Society

Theodore J. Welty, Executive DirectorZimmerman Heritage Farm

E X E C U T I V E

S U M M A R Y

5

Zimmerman Heritage Farm is a uniquecultural education and recreationalresource that is being created for the

benefit of the public on a 5.98-acre historic sitein Gresham, Oregon. The focal point is thehistoric Zimmerman House, a Victorian erafarmhouse, which was built in 1874 and islisted on the National Register of HistoricPlaces.

The Master Plan for Zimmerman HeritageFarm outlines a comprehensive vision and along-range, phased implementation plan forcultural heritage education and complemen-tary recreation facilities, programs, and specialevents and activities.

The goal of this master plan is to provide avision and a “road map” for creating a culturalheritage museum and community park thatwill become an enduring benefit to the com-munity.

The educational and interpretive focus ofthis historic house museum is the heritage ofthe Zimmerman family and dairy farming inEast Multnomah County. When fully opera-tional, Zimmerman Heritage Farm is expectedto attract over 20,000 visitors a year.

BACKGROUND

The Zimmerman farmhouse is located inGresham on NE Sandy Boulevard. The exist-ing property is a remnant parcel of the originaldairy farmstead that at one time encompassedapproximately 600 acres of reclaimed bottom-land along the lower Columbia River. TheZimmerman family had continuously lived on

the dairy farm from 1870 until 1992, more than120 years.

Isobel Zimmerman, the last descendant tolive in the house, wishing that the house,contents, and grounds be developed as a publicmuseum for the public, willed the land to theCity of Gresham. In 1993, the Fairview-Rockwood-Wilkes Historical Society (FRW)was willed the home and subsequently estab-

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

George Zimmerman family posing in the front yard of their Victorian era, Queen Anne style farmhouse, c. 1900. IsobelZimmerman is the small child at the top of the garden steps.

6

lished a standing committee, the Friends of theZimmerman House (FOHZ). The goal was topreserve the house, its rare and extensiveartifact collection, its picturesque gardens andgrounds, and to work with the City of Gre-sham to establish an historical communitypark. The historic house along with itsgrounds is managed through a partnershiparrangement between the City of Gresham andthe FRW, whereby the City owns the propertyand the FRW owns the house and its contents.

MASTER PLAN VISION

The comprehensive design concept forZimmerman Heritage Farm is restoration ofthe historic landscape scene of the farm. Thiswill be accomplished through restoration andreconstruction of historic buildings andstructures, as well as the gardens and orchardsassociated with the home.

The historic site showcases the restoredhistoric farmhouse along with restoration ofthe buttery building, arbor, fences, gardens,and grounds. The long-range plan envisionsreconstruction of a number of farm outbuild-ings that will support the site’s operationalneeds.

Site facilities for recreational and commu-nity purposes will be designed to recall imagesof traditional farm structures of the region atthe turn of the century, thereby contributing tothe overall image of the restored farmscape.New facilities will include picnic shelters, footpaths, open meadow, and a visitor center to beused in conjunction with the house museum

and as a community meeting space.The primary interpretive focus of the farm

will be the years between 1899 and 1915. Theseyears appear to be the fullest and happiest forthe Zimmerman family. The last child, Isobel,

Isobel Faith Zimmerman

George H. and Jessie McCall Zimmerman, 1883.

7

had been born, extensive Queen Anne styleadditions to the house had been completed,and the dairy farm was operating over a largearea in East Multnomah County.

Within the museum area of ZimmermanHeritage Farm, interpretative and heritageeducation programs will be created to drawupon the richness of the Zimmerman collec-tion. Potential exhibits and programs willencompass permanent indoor exhibits, livinghistory presentations, self-guided tours,changing exhibits, and special events.

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

Zimmerman Heritage Farm is intended tobenefit and serve the community throughcomplementary uses, such as educationalpartnerships, park and recreation programs,recreational activities, and community events.Some activities will directly serve the educa-tional mission. Other complementary uses willbe accommodated that can help sustain the siteeconomically.

Education programming for schools willinclude grade school programs (on- and off-site) and guided tours. School programs willbe tied to the State of Oregon’s educationbenchmarks.

A range of community education programswill be offered through the Gresham Parks andRecreation Division for all ages such as heir-loom gardening, genealogy, restoration tech-niques, old-fashioned craft skills, and water-color painting.

Special heritage events will be developed

around seasonal themes and will be estab-lished to create awareness, support, andrevenue. Other related special events spon-sored on the grounds by the City or FOZHmight include evening concerts and art exhibitsin the park. In addition, the historic groundswill have the facilities and appeal to attractsmall weddings, family reunions, and other

Jessie McCall Zimmerman

Methinks long years have flownAnd, sitting in her old arm chair

Jessie has older grown.With silver sprinkled in her hair.

Her album thus she holds,And turns its many pages o’erAnd wonders if it still contains

The memories of yore.As o’er these pages thus she runs

With many a sigh and kissThen suddenly she stops and says“Who could have written this?”

- S. M. A., Sept 1883One of multiple entries in

Jessie McCall’s album

8

groups to the site.Activities for the general public in park site

of the project include reserved-use of groundsand group-shelters for private gatherings,picnics, receptions, and occasional smallweddings. The site is also designed for low-key activities such as strolling, jogging, andpicnicking.

Agriculture museums are becoming highlypopular in urban areas around the countrybecause of their ability to foster connectionswith our disappearing agrarian past. Buildingupon this potential, visitor attendance and anarray of community uses of ZimmermanHeritage Farm are projected to increase overtime as the facility and programs develop andimprove.

IMPLEMENTATION

Three phases are identified in the imple-mentation plan that give direction for facilitydevelopment, operations and management,and program development. During the firstfive years (Phase 1) annual attendance isanticipated to be fairly limited due to thenecessary repair and restoration work on thehistoric house as well as the need to managethe on-site collections.

As Zimmerman Heritage Farm engages theactivities associated with Phase 2 (years 6-10),annual attendance is projected to increase toapproximately 14,000 visitors. As ZimmermanHeritage Farm enters Phase 3, full develop-ment of the master plan, annual attendance

Shared Project CostsFacility

ConstructionC o s t s

AnnualOperating

C o s t s

AnnualR e v e n u e

Projection

P h a s e 1 $188,200. $31,830. $32,362.

P h a s e 2 $472,600. $91,652. $92,126.

P h a s e 3 $1,039,300. $138,849. $138,981.

Note:All construction costsare in 1999 dollars.

should increase to over 21,000 visitors. Theincrease represents continued development ofinterpretive exhibits, established educationprograms and activities, as well as enhancedspecial events. In addition, the historicgrounds will have the facilities and appeal toattract small weddings, family reunions, andother groups to the site.

Estimates of shared project costs forconstruction, operation, and revenue aresummarized in the table below.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

9

Subsequently, the historical society establisheda standing committee, Friends of the Zimmer-man House (FOZH), for the purpose of pre-serving the house, its comprehensive collectionof artifacts, its gardens and grounds, and towork with the City of Gresham to establish ahistorical community park.

In 1993, the Zimmer-man house was bequeathedto FRW and in 1994 the landon which the house sits wasdonated to the City of Gre-sham. In 1995, the City ofGresham formally acceptedthe 2.38 acres of land for thepurpose of creating a com-munity park.

In 1996, the City pur-chased an additional 1.5acres directly west of theZimmerman House parcel.In 1997 Kenneth Holfman,Isobel’s nephew, donated anadditional 2.1 acres to theCity bringing the overallpark site to a total area of5.98 acres. The balance of the original dairy farmthat surrounded the project site was sold overtime to private parties for light industrial pur-poses.

A restoration-rehabilitation and accessibil-ity plan for the house was completed by FOZHin 1997 and is being implemented in phases. In1998, a temporary caretaker’s house waslocated near the east property line.

The historic house and the grounds are

INTRODUCTION

Isobel Faith Zimmerman, age 93.

The historic Zimmerman House is adelightful, turn-of-the-century farmhouse situated in a rapidly urbanizing

area of Northwest Gresham in East MultnomahCounty. The farmhouse is located at 17111 NESandy Boulevard on 5.98 acres, a remnantparcel of the original dairy farmstead that atone time extended over 600 acres of reclaimedbottomland along the Columbia River. Thehistoric Zimmerman house and 1.58 acres ofhistorical property was listed on NationalRegister of Historic Places on 5 June 1986.

OVERVIEW

From the time Jacob and Lena Zimmermanpurchased the property, the Zimmermanfamily had continuously lived on the farmuntil the death of their youngest granddaugh-ter, Isobel Faith Zimmerman in 1992. Jacoband Lena had arrived in the area as immigrantsin October 1851, coming west over the OregonTrail. They settled in the Portland vicinity andeventually purchased the Robert P. WilmotDonation Land Claim as their farm in Decem-ber 1869, and moved onto the farm in 1870.

It was Isobel Zimmerman’s desire that thehouse, contents, and remaining 2.38 acres offarmland be developed as a historic housemuseum for the public.

In 1987, local citizens created the Fairview-Rockwood-Wilkes Historical Society (FRW) forthe purpose of preserving and interpreting thecultural history of the Fairview, Rockwood,and Wilkes communities. Isobel Zimmermanwas a charter member of the historicial society.

10

managed through a partnership arrangementbetween the City of Gresham and FRW,whereby the City owns the property and FRWowns the house and its contents, with FOZH asan oversight committee.

Gresham Parks and Recreation DivisionMission

The Mission of the Gresham Parks andRecreation Division is to offer facilities andprograms that invite the public’s use. It’sefforts shall enhance Gresham’s quality of lifethrough the significant benefits providedthrough recreation. The Division takes anactive role in delivering park and recreationservices in a cost-effective manner. They striveto offer fully accessible services in partnershipwith others, encouraging volunteer involve-ment.

Fairview-Rockwood-Wilkes HistoricalSociety Mission

The mission of the Fairview-Rockwood-Wilkes Historical Society is to stimulate aninterest in and preserve the history of theFairview, Rockwood and Wilkes areas of EastMultnomah County, Oregon. It’s stated goal isto ensure that the future of their three areasdoes not loose touch with the past.

MASTER PLAN DIRECTIVE

The leadership of the City of Gresham andthe FOZH required planning services for thedevelopment of a master plan for the historicZimmerman House site and associated parkgrounds. The objective was to create a masterplan for a cultural heritage museum andcommunity park that would become anenduring benefit to the community.

The interpretive focus was the history ofthe Zimmerman family along with supportingthemes of Native American habitation, earlysettlement and agriculture. The City andFOZH established general project objectives tocomplete the master plan as a first phase of along-range vision:

� Involve the Gresham community.� Establish project vision and goals.� Research of the site’s archaeology and

history.� Analyze comparable facilities and forecast-

ing demand.� Analyze activity and event programming

scenarios.� Analyze historic landscape restoration

potential.� Analyze appropriate recreational usage.� Develop project components, size, scope,

costs.� Analyze financial aspects of public de-

mand and support.� Examine of management and operations

scenarios.� Establish project priorities and phasing.

11

MASTER PLAN PROCESS

In response to the Master Plan Directive,the interdisciplinary master plan consultantteam developed a multi-task planning processfor a 10-month planning period. Working incollaboration with the Gresham Parks andRecreation Division and FOZH, the planningconsultants examined a range of historic,education, recreation, and economic researchand planning considerations.

A blue-ribbon Technical Advisory Commit-tee of cultural heritage professionals wascreated to review and comment on planningwork at strategic intervals. Throughout theprocess, presentations were made to the City ofGresham’s Parks and Recreation CitizenAdvisory Committee and Historic ResourcesAdvisory Committee.

A focus group meeting was conductedwith local business community stakeholdersthat included the Chamber of Commerce andGresham Area Visitor Association. In addition,two community open-house events wereconducted to provide the public an opportu-nity to review and comment on facility designand program concepts for the heritage farmand park.

The following planning tasks formed the basisof the master plan process:

Task 1 - Project Initialization

Consultants compiled and reviewed allrelevant materials regarding the site and the

Zimmerman family’s history. A ConceptDevelopment Workshop was conducted toexplore an overall vision, general scope andcontent, and preliminary programs for theproject. The Workshop included representa-tives of the Gresham Parks & RecreationDivision, FOZH, FRW, Gresham Parks &Recreation Citizen Advisory Committee,Gresham Historic Resources Advisory Com-mittee, cultural heritage museum profession,and master plan consultants.

Task 2 - Research and Analysis

An archaeological surface survey of thehistoric site was completed to determine theexistence of any evidence of past materialculture. Research of the history of theZimmerman Family, relevant Native Americanhistory, emigrant settlement era, and thedevelopment of agriculture in East MultnomahCounty was completed as a basis for historiclandscape restoration of the site and to assesspreliminary interpretive opportunities for thehistoric house museum.

Market research of comparable facilitieswas completed to gather information ondemand, operating costs and sources ofrevenue, partnering examples, long rangefacility plans, volunteer activities, program-ming, and staffing for use in developingattendance projections and a financial proforma for operation and management of thepark and museum.

A museum research field trip to PhilipFoster Farm at Eagle Creek, Oregon and

12

Stevens-Crawford House Museum in OregonCity, Oregon was completed. The research tripallowed the client and consultants to gatherpertinent information on comparable historicsites and to also develop an increased aware-ness of operation and development issues thatare relevant to the master plan of theZimmerman Heritage Farm.

Inventory and analysis of project siteconditions was completed to examine projectopportunities and constraints as a basis forsubsequent site design work of the historiclandscape. Relevant planning, building code,and accessibility were assessed for compliancerequirements.

Task 3 - Facility Program Development

Based upon the foregoing research activi-ties, a range of appropriate facility programsand special events for the Zimmerman Heri-tage Farm were examined to determine theirconsistency with desired public benefits andimpact on development of the project site. Apreliminary museum vision and interpretivetheme structure for the museum was devel-oped that addressed both indoor and outdoorinterpretation and education programming.

Task 4 - Alternative Site Master Plan Designs

Based upon the findings of the foregoingFacility Program Development task, alternativesite designs of proposed facilities were pre-pared illustrating site concepts, facility pro-gram components. The alternative site designs

were presented for evaluation and synthesis ofa Preferred Master Plan Design Concept.

Task 5 - Final Master Plan Concept andImplementation Plan

Based upon evaluation of site plan designalternatives, a Preferred Design Concept of thesite was developed for incorporation in theMaster Plan. The Preferred Concept alsoillustrated the range of potential interpretive-educational program and facility componentsand utility infrastructure.

An implementation and operation planwas prepared to establish respective responsi-bilities between the City of Gresham and theFriends of Zimmerman House. The imple-mentation plan also provides recommenda-tions for site facility programs, collectionsmanagement, staffing, governance, construc-tion costs, annual maintenance and operationscosts, revenue projections, and prioritizedphasing of facility components.

C O N T E X T

13

The Zimmerman Heritage Farm site islocated in the northern limits of the Cityof Gresham in East Multnomah County.

Gresham, with a population of over 83,000 in1999, is Oregon’s fourth largest city.

REGIONAL SETTING

Situated east of Portland, Oregon’s largestcity, Gresham is rapidly urbanizing, transform-ing itself from an agriculture-based area ofberry and dairy farming to a service-based,residential community. The communities ofFairview, Wood Village, and Troutdale aredirectly east of the farm and adjacent to thenorth Gresham area.

Zimmerman Heritage Farm is locateddirectly north of I-84, Oregon’s only east-westinterstate freeway. A majority of visitors reachthe site via Exit #13 on I-84 approximately 1/2mile east of the farm site. Local access is fromNE Sandy Boulevard, an historic east-westtravel route to and from Portland.

Zimmerman Heritage Farm is accessiblefrom Portland International Airport via I-205and I-84. The farm museum site is in proxim-ity to the gateway to the Columbia River GorgeNational Scenic area with its array of culturaland natural history resources and attractions.

PARK PLANNING CONTEXT

In the “City of Gresham Parks, Recreation,& Open Space Master Plan” completed in 1995,the Zimmerman site is designated as a uniquecommunity park in a portion of the City of

CONTEXTGresham that is considered under-served withregard to city park and recreaction services. Acommunity park as defined in the master planis intended to serve all residents of the Cityand to provide a variety of active and passiverecreation opportunities. The master planfurther states that “the historic ZimmermanHouse could provide a community park thatemphasizes Gresham’s history and the historyof agriculture in the area.”

C O L U M B I AR I V

E R

B l u e L a k e

F a i r v i e w L a k e

I-84 Freeway

NE Halsey

NE Marine Drive

NE 1

81st

Ave

NE 1

62nd A

ve

NE Sandy Blvd

Lee Middle School

Wilkes Elementary School

U.P.R.R.

C o l u m b i a S l o u g h

NE Airport Way

Gresham City Limits

ZIMMERMAN HERITAGE

FARM

Reynolds Middle School

14

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

A foot survey of the Zimmerman property wascomplete on 28 December 1998. Fifteen metertransects were walked in a continuous west toeast, east to west direction across the property,when ever possible. Generally, the site’ssurface was covered with a thick cover ofgrasses. In most areas, the surface was notvisible due to a heavy cover of vegetation,primarily blackberry brambles.

West of the existing Pound Pear orchardthe original surface was not visible due toapproximately 2-3 feet of soil overaying thesite. This soil overlay was located on theproperty once leased by a tree nursery. Theoverburden covers over half of the propertywest of the orchard. There were still a fewnursery trees planted in this area, but most of itis unvegetated.

As a result of preliminary archaeologicalfield work, no cultural material was encoun-tered during the foot survey of the property.While no cultural material was encountered onthe surface, this does not eliminate the possibil-ity of subsurface features being present.

There are several structures, such as theprivy, that are no longer present and that havenot been accounted for on the project property.Historic features, as well as prehistoric, couldpossibly be encountered during any futureground-disturbing activities.

A library search was conducted in order tofind any previous archaeological work con-ducted in the project area. One previousarchaeological survey of project area was

located. During 1978-1979, a cultural resourcessurvey was undertaken in the Greater Portlandarea. This project was funded by the City ofPortland, under CETA, Title VI and sponsoredby the Department of Anthropology at Port-land State University.

The Blue Lake area was one of threespecific areas investigated. The Blue LakeSurvey Region (BLSR) was roughly defined asa two mile by one and one-half mile areabetween Blue Lake Park and NE 158 Avenue,and between the south bank of the Columbiariver and the Banfield Highway/Union PacificRailway tracks.

This area was selected because of theknown presence in Blue Lake Park of a lateprehistoric/historic Chinook Indian villageand because of the potential threat to archaeo-logical sites within that area urbanization. Thegoal was to locate archaeological sites and tomobilize efforts on behalf of their preservationonce they were located. The ZimmermanHouse is located within the BLSR project area.

The BLSR research team conducted asurface land survey of all accessible landhaving some visibility. Ninety percent of theflood plain/river-front property was surveyedand approximately sixty percent of the firstand second terraces (land areas of differentheights).

That project found that the flood plain wasstill largely agricultural with some smallsections still wooded and other sectionsdevoted to industrial use. Land was notsurveyed if it had thick grass or weed cover, ifit was wooded, if no access was permitted by

15

the landowner, and if it was inaccessible due tocommercial/industrial development. All landwithin the vicinity of Zimmerman HeritageFarm was privately owned.

As part of the BLSR study private artifactcollections were also examined and photo-graphed. A total of 10 presumably prehistoricartifacts from the Zimmerman collection wereexamined and some analysis was completed.The study identified nineteen archaeologicalsites and one historic site of special note. Thesesites were within a highly disturbed areadelineated for urban development. An historicsite of interest for the Zimmerman HeritageFarm project, which was identified but notphysically located during the BLSR project,was one of the home sites of Indian John, afriend of the Zimmerman family.

In 1979, a archaeological study of the areawas completed by Lambi Kongas. Within thatstudy, Kongas recorded the location of thehome of Indian John, a Native American friendof the Zimmerman family. His home waslocated almost directly south of the Zimmer-man house on a portion of a plant nursery thatwas situated half-way between NE SandyBoulevard and the Banfield Highway/UnionPacific Railway tracks, approximately 800meters west of the junction of NE SandyBoulevard and NE 181st Avenue. Apparently,until 1893, Indian John lived in a cabin that hadbeen built earlier by pioneers. At the time ofhis occupancy of the cabin, this location was awooded area.

In summary, the BLSR project did notlocate or record any historic or prehistoric sites

on the Zimmerman Heritage Farm Master Planproject property.

HISTORICAL RESEARCH

Physical Setting

The Zimmerman Heritage Farm is locatedin a cross-section of the sandy and silty Colum-bia River flood plain on a low terrace consist-ing of unconsolidated sand and silt. The broadflood plain of the Columbia River has eleva-tions of 10 feet to 30 feet and the soil is siltyalluvium.

The Columbia River and its flood plainhave continued to change appearances innu-merable times with shifts in the riverbed, in theerosion of banks, and in the composition of thesloughs surrounding the river.

The farm’s location and the surroundingarea which now makes up the Gresham,Fairview, and Troutdale communities borderthe Columbia River with several large islandsnearby. South of the river to Sandy Boulevardis low-lying, rich bottomlands forested withash, willow and dogwood. Wappato, an Indianfood staple, originally grew in the ponds, suchas nearby Blue Lake.

The uplands at the south edge of Greshamwere forested with cedar and fir. East andsouth of Gresham, foothills lead into Mt. Hoodfrom which flow the Sandy River and thelower Sandy River. The flat gravel terracescontinue west to Portland.

The climate of the project area is pleasant

16

with moderate, warm dry summers and mildwet winters. The annual precipitation is 40" to60" with air temperatures averaging from 52 to54 degrees F annually, and an average of 165-212 frost-free days a year.

Zimmerman Heritage Farm is situated atthe west-end of the Columbia River Gorge, themajor passageway through the CascadeMountain Range. The Gorge creates dramaticeast winter winds and ice storms in the projectarea.

Little of the original fauna and flora remainin the project area. Historically, the flood plainwas mostly used for agricultural purposeswhile the terraces are being utilized for com-mercial, residential and increasingly forindustrial purposes.

Native Culture

In its riverine orientation, the ZimmermanHeritage Farm project area echoes an ancientsubsistence theme, suggested by the regionalarchaeological record. Evidence of habitationdates from approximately 10,000 years beforepresent times.

Sites of early human occupation mayreflect seasonal-round activities, i.e. the move-ment during periods of the year to take advan-tage of seasonal plants and wildlife. Duringthis time, the population would move frommore permanent winter villages to smallersecondary sites. Gathering, fishing andhunting were the main components of thesubsistence cycle.

Ethnographic accounts of the Lower

Columbia River Chinook culture are numerousalthough not focused upon the Zimmermanproject area. It is generally accepted that theChinook people lived in autonomous villagesthat were under the leadership of a wealthyand/or influential person. Travel for trade, aswell as for seasonal exploitation of resources,was common; rivers served as the mainavenues of travel. It is also generally acceptedthat Chinook society was a class society withdistinctions made between nobles, commonpeople and slaves.

The abundance and fertility of the physicalenvironment permitted a complex Chinookansocial fabric, which were basically fishing,hunting, gathering and trading economy.

Clackamas men painted by Paul Kane (circa 1830’s).

17

Exploration Period

Euro-American contact with the NativePeoples of the Lower Columbia began in the16th century with the maritime explorations ofthe Spanish and English. Contacts resumed bythe English and Spanish in the 18th centurywith additional interest from the Americansand Russians. Exploration soon turned to fur-trade which would give way to overlandexpeditions, the establishment of pioneer trails,and the eventual settlement and possession ofthe region by Euro-Americans.

The Lewis and Clark Expedition at thestart of the 19th century provides the firstpublished detailed information concerning thephysical and cultural environment of thecountry west of the Rocky Mountains ingeneral and the Zimmerman Heritage Farmproject area.

The area now known as the Portland Basinwas a fertile, lush region with mild-climateproducing an abundance of fauna and flora.The Columbia River in this area was noted tocontain several islands. The islands hadinterior ponds ranging from sparse to thicklytimbered, some heavily populated by fowlduring fall migration.

Lewis and Clark focused explorationprimarily on the Columbia River; smaller tripswere made up tributaries, such as the SandyRiver and their men hunted on the islands andin the uplands. From the descriptions Lewisand Clark provided, the Zimmerman projectarea and its surrounding vicinity appear as adynamic region with a heavy concentration of

micro-environments: bottom lands, dry prai-ries, island, uplands, marshes, rivers, lakes andwoods all within a short distance of each other.

Approaching the Sandy River, on their jour-ney to the coast, and three miles to the east ofthat river, Clark complains that

“the undergrowth rushes,vines, etc. in the bottoms (are)too thick to pass through.”

At the Sandy River, he remarks that

“the country has a handsomeappearance in advance. Nomountains. Extensive bottoms.The water shallow for a greatdistance from shore.”

William Clark Meriwether Lewis

18

He calls the Sandy River the Quicksand Riverand describes it as shallow and sandy, drainingthe western slope of Mt. Hood with the twomouths of the river discharging into the Colum-bia River.

Clark names Lady Island the Island ofFowles (sic) and describes it as three and one-

half miles by one and one-half miles with a rockynorthern side having pines and cottonwood andimmense quantities of geese, brants, ducks, seaotter, swan, sandal crane, loons and white gulls.He writes, “a thousand fowl passed overhead.”

Rich bottomland was noted with scatteredriverfront trees consisting of cottonwood,large-leafed maple, ash, willow, and dogwoodwith the bottoms having small ponds wherewappato grew. A few lowland prairie areas,some with ponds and lush spring growth ofnumerous plants and other bottomlandsthickly covered in the fall with heavy brushwere also observed.

Uplands of dense stands of white cedarand fir at elevations of 200 feet having veryrich soil, with a gradual approach to theuplands and woods of white oak, pin andundergrowth. Mountains as foothills headinginto the Mt. Hood Corridor, were noted ashaving rich soil and plentiful spring hunting ofelk, bear and deer.

Lewis and Clark estimated that 8,000people lived between the site of present-dayPortland and the Cowlitz River to the west.The Expedition notes the presence of twovillages, one on either side of the project area.Ne-cha-co-kee to the east, in Blue Lake Parkarea; and Neer-che-ki-oo to the west of thisarea in the region of the present-day PortlandInternational Airport.

During the early decades of the 19th

Century, British and American fur companieswere positioning themselves in the PacificNorthwest for control of the fur trade. By 1821,the North West Company was absorbed by the

“the country is low, rich andthickly timbered on each sideof the river, the islands (areopen and (there are) someponds river-wide and immese(sic) numbers of fowl...Also(there are) great numbers of seaotter in the river.”

— William Clark journalentry describing the country

below the Sandy river.

Interior of a Chinook wood plank house. This image is representative of living quarters and conditions of NativeAmericans of the lower Columbia River region as witnessed by Euro-Americans in the 1800’s.

19

powerful, Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC).In 1825, operations were moved from Fort

George on the coast to the north shore of theColumbia River, seven miles upstream fromthe Willamette and would be called FortVancouver.

Disease had steadily been taking its toll onthe Native population from the time of firstcontact, raging up and down the ColumbiaRiver. Disease was the worst around FortVancouver and Sauvie Island. HBC ChiefFactor Dr. John McLoughlin estimated deathrates from 50 to 90 percent of the native peopleduring this early period of Euro-Americancontact.

Settlement Era

Fort Vancouver continued to be the majorBritish settlement in the Portland area hum-ming with activity that deeply impressedoccasional visitors. Fort William, a rivaltrading post built on Sauvie Island by theindependent American fur trader NathanielWyeth, lasted only two years from 1835 to1837, before the HBC took over the abandonedsite as a dairy farm.

The first large European settlements werelocated along the Willamette River. Retiredemployees of HBC, mostly French Canadians,had begun to settle and cultivate the “FrenchPrairie” in 1829.

A second settlement formed at the base ofWillamette Falls on the Willamette River whereJohn McLoughlin and Methodist missionariescontended for control of what seemed to be the

natural location for a major town.By the winter of 1842-43, the new commu-

nity of Oregon City had made a significantimpression on the wilderness, with more thanthirty buildings, a gristmill, and a growingcompetition for building lots. It was the firstdestination for most of the participants in theswelling American migrations that hadbrought over 800 new settlers to Oregon in1843 and about 1,200 more in 1844.

By the time the Zimmerman family arrivedin Oregon in 8 October 1851, the Portland areaand its surrounding settlements were emergingas real towns. In 1850, three quarters of the 805residents recorded were male; nine-tenths of allPortlanders in their twenties were men,attracted by jobs in road and building construc-tion. Portland served as depot and generalstore for the growing Oregon population.

By the end of the 1850’s, when the townwas poised for a new surge of growth,Portlanders had organized a typically Ameri-can community of churches and schools,government, politics, and fraternal organiza-tions. In 1872 it was reputed to be one of therichest towns of its size in the United States.Wealth came from transportation, banking,merchandising, and real estate. An ironfurnace, and several casting plants, comprisedPortland’s heavy industry. Shipbuildingactivities were modest. There were about thesame number of ship carpenters, riggers, andcaulkers employed in Oregon and Washington.

Dr. John McLoughlin, Chief FactorHudson’s Bay Company, Fort Vancouver

20

Gresham Area

The earliest settlers to the Gresham areaarrived in the 1840’s. Peyton and Anna Wilkessettled in the Sandy River area in 1845. News-paper accounts report that Wilkes settled inWashington County where he opened atannery in 1847, not remaining in the Greshamarea.

Perhaps the first road into the northGresham area was Sandy Road, known first asColumbia Slough Road. Snyder states thatSandy Road can be dated back at least to 1881.The Columbia Gorge leg of the Oregon Trailfollowed this road. Later it became the route ofthe old Columbia River Highway from Port-land to Troutdale.

Powell Valley Road, which went from theWillamette River in Southeast Portland to theSandy River, was the first road into the centralGresham area. Land claims along this roaddate from 1852.

Other early roads include Base Line Road,which later became Stark Street. It was laid outon the Base Line of the first territorial landsurvey in the 1850’s. Division Street was laidout in the 1870’s as Section Line Road. It was aline between surveyed sections. The name waschanged to Division in 1882.

Several nearby communities were orga-nized about the same time as Gresham. Theearliest of these was Fairview, located west ofTroutdale. Pioneer immigrants Jacob and LenaZimmerman were one of five families thatfounded and settled the community ofFairview.

Fairview adopted its name in 1855 and wasalso the name of a Methodist church, organizedtwo years earlier. The Oregon Railroad andNavigation Company line was built in 1882,and the station was named Fairview. As therewas a Fairview in Coos County in SouthernOregon, confusion resulted.

Fairview was also known as Cleone for ashort time. Milton Hosford suggested Cleoneas a name for the post office established onMarch 29, 1883. Eventually, the Fairview inCoos County was abandoned, and the nameFairview was again adopted.

Regional Agriculture - Late 19th Century

By the late 1800s, Willamette Valleyfarmers had easily fallen into patterns offarming and husbandry that were neitherprofitable nor enterprising. They were reluc-tant to change their ways from methods theyhad learned elsewhere to suit the conditions ofthe new land. Private citizens instituted a StateAgricultural Society in 1860 and agriculturepublications helped to bring new ideas to theregion. Fruit farming began to take hold in theValley by 1870, but the farmers’ staples werewheat and cattle.

Agriculture was generally in the doldrumsin the 1870’s and no less so in Oregon andWashington. In 1871, Portland was experienc-ing a real estate boom that sent prices up 20-25% in older parts of town and 50-100 % innew additions, improved farmlands in theValley on the route of the west-side railroad

21

were offered, with few takers, at 10 dollars to20 dollars an acre.

Dairy farming prospered most in the valleylands of Western Washington and Oregon,especially where transportation and locationwere fairly accessible to the urban markets.The chief dairy counties in Oregon were thosein the Willamette Valley: Lane, Linn, Washing-ton, Clackamas, and Multnomah.

Bulletins published by agricultural agen-cies emphasized the opportunities awaitingthose that would claim the logged-over timber-lands, and described in some detail the mannerin which it must be done.

One emigrant from the Middle West, whosettled 40 acres of logged off land, put dairycows on it, and in a short time built it up froma 1,000-dollar investment to $10,000, stated “Imake more here in the summer in one monthout of cream than I did all year in Kansas.”

Dairy Farms

The Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC)brought a small cattle herd to Fort Vancouver,sometime in 1835. These animals probablycame from the Sandwich Islands. HBC re-tained exclusive ownership of every animal,including the offspring of the cows whileleased to American and other settlers. Becauseof this monopoly, no progress was made instock raising, until 1837, when the first Spanishcattle were brought overland from Californiaby American settlers in the Willamette Valley.

Oregon Trail immigrants traveled the 2,000

mile route with a milking cow as part of theirlivestock inventory. By 1850, the number ofcattle in the valley was so great that this regionsupplied the northern mines and the miners ofSouthern Oregon.

In pioneer homes, butter and cheesemaking usually supplied home need, butprocesses for such were simple and oftencrude. Settlers in the valley counties could seethat conditions for dairying were excellent,even unsurpassed, due to the almost perpetu-ally green grass, the pure water and theabundant shelter. In 1885, it was noted that theample opportunities for the diary industrywere not being taken advantage of.

The failure of urban markets to influencethe location of butter and cheese productionmay be explained at least partially by theexceptionally rapid growth of major towns.Portland was only four years old in 1850, andmost of its population had arrived since 1849.

Given the economic and physical limita-tions of frontier life, farmers simply could notconvert to dairying rapidly enough to meetnew demands—especially during a gold rushthat found many farmers away from theirhomes for at least part of each year.

A better breed of cow was needed fordairying, and by the end of the 19th century, notone of the original traits of the Mexican im-ported pioneer cattle existed in Oregon.Instead, the fine points of Jersey, Alderney,Ayrshire, Shorthorn, and other importedbreeds could be found in almost everyWillamette Valley herd.

The first effort of any importance to

“I make more here in the sum-mer in one month out of creamthan I did all year in Kansas.”

– Immigrant dairy farmer

“The dairy interests, likefruit-growing, are capable ofindefinite extension; and thesupply of butter and cheesemight be made equal to anydemand. Cows can be keptalive all the winter, sustainedsolely on the natural grasses,and a slight addition to theirfood will keep them in excellentcondition. In no case is it nec-essary to resort to the expen-sive stall-feeding, practicedwith dairy cows in the East, for,with far less care and attention,the Oregon cow equals theEastern animal in quality andflow of milks. Hence, thedairyman, as regards the ex-pense of keeping cows, standsat an advantage in Oregon.”

– Unkown writer, (Lang 1885)

22

improve the breeds of cattlein Oregon was made by S.G.Reed, in 1872. In that year,Reed purchased a tract ofland at Reedville in Washing-ton County, and anotherlarger tract at Boradmeads inYamhill County. He stockedboth places with the best beefand dairy cattle he could findin the eastern states orScotland.

Shorthorns, Ayreshires,and Jerseys were purchasedwithout regard to price. Reedtransported his cattle by railand brought skilled laborwith them. The new cattlemade a great sensation at allthe agricultural fairs and

stock shows creating much excitement, interestand rivalry.

The distinctive Holstein-Friesian breed washighly regarded by dairymen for its high milkproduction capability. Dairy farms developedlarge herds of Holsteins with annual milkproduction often averaging 16,000 pounds ofmilk per cow. Holstein-Friesians were origi-nally developed in provinces of North Hollandand West Friesian, Holland. The breed wasbrought to the U.S. by the Dutch who settledNew Amsterdam (now New York) around1630.

During the 1800’s, dairying was beingestablished in the region, often on a large scale.The Ankey farm on the Santiam River, kept

some two hundred cows and butter and cheesemanufactured with patent appliances andequipment of the most approved style of theday.

A group of progressive farmers in Wash-ington County organized a creamery associa-tion in order to make butter for the wholeneighborhood at one place and by experiencedbutter makers. A year’s trial proved that therewas more money in making butter and cheesethan in raising wheat. So the scene was set forGeorge Zimmerman, Jacob’s son, when he tookover the farm in 1881.

“You can whip our cream, but you can’tbeat our milk” was a whimsical advertisementused by Fairview Farms Dairy in the WoodVillage area to promote their dairy productsfrom the 1940’s to the 1960’s .

Houses and Styles of the Period

The Zimmerman farmhouse is typical offarmhouses that were built between 1875 and1900 have been collectively called “WesternFarmhouses”. Similar structures appearedacross the rural American West about the sametime. Whatever style they adopted, thesehouses were roughly alike in volumetricorganization, plan layout and disposition ofornament.

Positioning bedrooms and woodshedsacross the south and west of the plan wastypical. Secondary spaces buffeted livingspaces from the extremities of climate.

Along with functional advantage, organi-

“You can whip our cream,but you can’t beat our milk.”

Holstein-Friesian dairy cow breed.

– Advertisement fromFairview Farms Dairy

23

zation in separate wings provided a distinctivepictorial quality. Ceilings were high; windows,relatively tall and narrow. Bay windows, tallchimneys and a profusion of porches enhancedtheir appearance. Even when the overall housewas plain, with eaves and window frames ofsimple construction, the porches have orna-mental posts, brackets and railings.

New houses ranged from a utilitarianfarmhouse type, generally plain except for porchdetail, to expressions of a succession of na-tional styles, including the Italian Villa, theSecond Empire and later, some evidence of

High Gothic and Queen Anne.Within the precepts of any later 19th

century style, there were myriad possibleinterpretations giving houses individuality.The Zimmerman house most closely reflectsthe Queen Anne style.

The utilitarian house may have developedin direct relationship to rural conditions. Thehouse was built in a current style with urbanand suburban origins.

Selection of such a house for an isolatedrural site in the Willamette Valley suggests theprosperity, sophistication and/or aspirations of

Original Zimmerman House, c.1874. Zimmerman House, c. 1900.

24

the farmer in the later part of the 19th century.The Nicolai Brothers company (a sash,

door and blind company) in Portland providedarchitectural elements for these new farm-houses built between 1875 and 1895 andparticularly the decade from 1880 to 1890.

Details were suited to houses in a varietyof styles; both the Italian Villa and the SecondEmpire house could be easily accommodated.Selection and organization of materials andforms and massing of the new building estab-lished a particular style.

Imagery and coordination was the work ofthe designer or architect and the factorysupplied many of the ingredients. Any ofwhich could be custom made to suit specialrequirement or whim, resulting in an endlessvariation.

Mechanical improvements appearing inthe 1880’s were by 1920 incorporated in mostnew buildings and remodeling. Improvementsinclude running water in the kitchen, a fullbathroom, a hot-air furnace or radiatorsthroughout. Most houses had electric wiringand a telephone by the 20th century.

Household and Farm Chores

It was not unusual for women (wives,daughters and sisters) to undertake the workof what would later be delegated to “hiredhands” in the early days of a homestead. Thiswas especially true and critical during the earlyyears of any farm or homestead. Until a farmcould be established and children (hopefully

sons) and cash money for wages could becounted upon, mothers and daughters wouldtake up the slack in addition to doing the usualhousehold chores of cooking, cleaning, andchild rearing.

Milking cows had to be done twice a day—morning and night, year in and year out,unless a cow had a “sucking calf”. Cows werebrought in from the pasture—usually the cowsknew the time and started back to the barn—caught, and put into stantions. Each cow’sudder was washed before milking.

Quantity and quality of milk and creamdepended on the time of year, feed and type ofcow. Good milk cows, such as Holsteins, werekept in production and their calves weanedearly.

Each cow and her personality were known.Some might be gentle to milk and othersworked to make this chore difficult—kicking,swishing tails or kicking over buckets. Milkwas then cooled and the cream separated. Bythe late 19th century cream separation was doneby a machine, first hand-operated and thenelectric.

One person could accomplish productionof milk, butter, cream and cheese for home useand have a surplus for sale. It was not unusualfor a home herd to be about 12-18 head ofcattle.

Children of all ages were expected tohelp—bringing in cows, feeding, herding,milking, and making butter. For larger opera-tions, it was necessary to have hired help,dependable and speedy transportation tomarket, and adherence to industry standards.

“Dairy cows work 365 days ayear. They can drink up to 25-30gallons of water each day and eatapproximately 100 pounds ofgrass within six hours each day.”

– Oregon Dairy

Farmers Association

25

Indian John

At the end of the 19th century, a notedNative American figure of the Portland/Fairview area was known only as “IndianJohn”. Some estimated the time period of hislife to have spanned the period of Lewis andClark’s visit to the Blue Lake Park area as wellas the settlement and the development ofagriculture in the area.

Oral history records claim Indian John tobe descendant from the Chief of theMultnomah who was credited with havingmaintained long-term peace in this area.Apparently he held confederacy meetings onSauvie Island. He also participated in Indiangatherings at Blue Lake.

Indian John said he remembered Lewisand Clark on their visit to the Blue Lake area.He was a small boy and may have received aniron skillet as a gift. Indian John traveledoverland to The Dalles area in Eastern Oregon.He was friendly toward the pioneers, and theywere grateful to him for the warnings he issuedof possible Indian uprising east of the Cas-cades, e.g. the 1847 Cayuse war and the 1855war.

In 1863, the Patrick Hogan farm was leasedto Indian John. The Patrick Hogan farm wasoriginally the Jessie Flemming Donation LandClaim that George Zimmerman later pur-chased in 1869 and became the western half ofGeorge’s 600+ acres of dairy farm. Indian Johnlived on the Hogan farm with his sixth wifeand daughter. His wife, however, died shortlythereafter. Indian John wrapped her in a

blanket and placed her in a raised platform in atraditional Indian burial. His daughter alsodied during this time and he cared for her in asimilar manner. The platform was placed in awooded area called Memaloos Woods and hisdaughter’s body was placed on MemaloosIsland in the Columbia River down-river ofThe Dalles, Oregon.

Toward the end ofhis life, Indian Johnearned his living in avariety of ways; tan-ning hides, hoeing po-tatoes, hunting andselling fish. Duringhis last years, IndianJohn lived on GeorgeZimmerman’s prop-erty. Mr. Zimmermanfeared the old manmight die alone in hiscabin in the woods, sohe arranged to havehim placed in thecounty poor farm. He died shortly after beingconfined there. He was said to be over 100 yearsold at the time of his death in 1893.

Zimmerman Family – A Short History

Jacob Zimmerman (1816-1899) was born inBaden, Germany, in Hofenheim. As a youngman, he learned the machinist trade in hisnative land. In 1843, Jacob Zimmerman sailedto America and settled in Philadelphia, PA.Jacob immediately applied for U.S. citizenship

Indian John posing in front of his cedarplank house on George Zimmerman’s farm.The house was constructed in the traditionalmanner of Native people on the LowerColumbia River.

26

while still in Philadelphia. In 1845, Jacobmarried Lebolina (Lena) Schoepfel (1827-1887)who was also a Baden native. By 1849 Jacob’scitizenship was granted and he and Lena wereliving in Cincinnati Ohio.

In 1851 Jacob and Lena and two children,William J. and Frances S., joined a wagon trainof immigrants bound for the Oregon Territory.The family arrived in the Willamette Valley on10 October 1851. Late in the same year theZimmerman family settled on Hayden Islandin the Columbia River below Portland. Jacobwas disappointed when, in the spring/summerof 1852, the Columbia River flooded his earlyfarming attempts.

He relocated about 10 miles east of Port-land on a 320-acre Donation Land Claim,

located between what is now 201st Avenue onthe west, Fairview Lake on the North, 210thAvenue to the east, with the southern borderapproximately 1 block north of NE HalseyStreet. The tract contained some timber andbottomland along the Columbia River. Jacoband Lena’s son, George Henry Zimmerman(1852-1915), was born on this land.

Sometime during the period between 1857and 1869, Jacob traded this farm for a largerfarm nearby, and continued farming until 1868,at which time he moved to Portland andworked at the Oregon Iron Works Company.

In December 1869, Jacob purchased theRobert P. Wilmot Donation Land Claim andmoved onto the farm site in 1870 where hisfamily would spend the rest of their years.

Jacob Zimmerman Lebolina Zimmerman

27

During this first year, the family would behoused in a log cabin.

Soon after the cabin was completed, peartrees were planted and other improvementsmade on the land. The original farmhouse wasbuilt by James S. Love in 1874. By that time,Jacob had established a thriving business ofselling produce from the farm. Jacob contin-ued to farm until renting the farm to his son,George, in 1881.

As a young man, George Zimmermanreceived a common school education andsupplemented it by attending Portland Acad-emy. In 1880, he managed Mrs. HannahSmith’s farm and experimented with dairyfarming. The next year George leased hisfather’s farm.

George married Jessie M. McCall (1862-1943) in 1883. Jessie had been born inKilmarnock, Ayshire, Scotland. She immi-grated with her family to Canada in 1868 andlater to the United States in 1871. By 1875, theyhad found their way to Willamina, Oregon.

In the years of 1881/82, the McCall’smoved to the Rockwood area. George andJessie would have four daughters, Jessie May(1884-1968), Olive Hope (1889-1980), MabelJune (1891-1914), and Isobel Faith (1899-1992).

George Zimmerman enlarged the farm to660 acres and carried on a profitable dairybusiness. Butter and cheese were manufac-tured on the farm and delivered to the Port-land area. Significant improvements would bemade to the farm during the middle part of the1880’s. A horse barn was added in 1885, acow/dairy barn was added in 1889, and the George and Jessie Zimmerman, 1883 wedding portrait.

28

brick “dairy building” was constructed, wherecheese and butter would be made and sold.After completing these enhancements, thehouse underwent a major remodel in 1899.

Remodeling of the farmhouse by JackBrown included enlarging 4 of the 5 bedroomson the west side of the house, adding a newkitchen on the east side of the house, andcompleting a facelift to the porches and exterior

of the home. It is during this remodeling thatmost of the “gingerbread” and other architec-tural details are added.

In 1903, George was described as a Repub-lican who “has been active in supporting thebest interests of his party, and has himselfserved as a school director and clerk. He is amember of the Methodist Church, and is one ofthe staunch supporters of that denomination in

Zimmerman daughters, Wilkes School.Row 2 - Jessie (2nd from left) Olive (3rd from left); row 3 - Mabel (2nd from left) .

Isobel Zimmerman

29

his locality.”The early 20th century brought many

changes, adventures and tragedies to theZimmerman family. In 1906, the eldest daugh-ter, Jessie May was wed to Thomas Millarduring a ceremony held under the grape arborin the farmhouse yard. George, Jessie, and thethree unmarried daughters took an extensiveoverland trip during August 1909 through

1910. They traveled across the CanadianRockies, through the northeastern and south-ern United States, and back through thesouthwestern portion of the county andreturning home from San Francisco by ship.One of the first stops on this trip was to theAlaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition in Seattle,Washington.

In 1911, George, Jessie and the youngest

George Zimmerman family from left: Olive, George, Jessie May, Mabel, Isobel, and Jessie (McCall).

30

daughter, Isobel, cruised from San Francisco toHawaii aboard the S.S. Sierra. Tragically, in1914, Mabel June Zimmerman, the thirddaughter, would die at the young age of 23.George passed away in 1915 at the age of 63. Itwould not be until 1943 that Jessie McCallZimmerman would follow her husband indeath at the age of 81.

Older daughter Jessie May and her hus-band Tom Millar moved back home to operatethe dairy. Sometime in the early 1920’sGeorge’s widow, Jessie, decided to lease thefarm land and dairy buildings. Several differ-ent Swiss dairymen operated their businessesat the Zimmerman farm.

Isobel graduated from the University ofOregon with a degree in teaching and sciencein 1921. She followed her sisters Olive andMabel who both graduated from the Univer-sity of Oregon in 1913. Isobel taught science atFranklin High School in Portland from 1930-1960. Never marrying, Isobel continued to livein the family house until her death in 1992 atthe age of 93.

From initial research of the family historyit is assumed that, given the economic andsocial position of the family, Jessie and herdaughters did not routinely participate in farmchores as might occur on other farm house-holds of the era.

Material Culture of the Zimmerman Family

It is through the rich material culture of theZimmerman Family that we are able to

President Taft greets George Zimmerman.

Tom Millar, husband of Jessie May, plowing with a Case tractor on the Zimmerman farm.

31

glimpse some of the everyday life on the farm.Thomas Schlereth defines material culture “asthe entire natural and man-made environmentwith which researchers can interpret the past.”This catch-all phrase includes structures,artifacts, art, beliefs, and even habits.

The house is essentially the way it waswhen the youngest daughter Isobel wasgrowing up. Very few changes were madeduring her adult life, certainly no majorstructural changes to the house. The family leftbehind a very complete material record of theirlife. The collection of family artifacts includesfurniture, photos, documents, clothing, books,advertising memorabilia, diaries, albums, andletters, to mention a few.

There is also the full range of commonhousehold items and the special keepsakes thatmade up one family’s existence. By “reading”the artifacts, which were left behind, someassumptions can begin to be made about thelife and the family.

One of the most valuable documents,which provide a look into the early years of theZimmerman family, is an account ledger. Inthis, the business accounts for the farm werekept. The first entry we are able to see isJanuary 1869 where butter was sold at 40 centsper pound. Over the years, entries werefaithfully kept—recording the produce soldand equally faithfully recording the itemspurchased. Through the years what the farmproduced and sold is recorded: cherries, eggs,butter, potatoes, cabbage (in cooler monthssauerkraut), apples, turnips, beef, chickens,turkeys, wheat, carrots, beans, blackberries,

Jessie McCall Zimmerman

Isobel Zimmerman

George Zimmerman

Dear Jessie,

“May thy path be strew’d with flowersand no thorns in thy wayMay health and happyness (sic) be yoursis my prayer from day to day.”

Francis Tegart,Rockwood Sep 16, 1883

— Excerpt fromJessie McCall Zimmerman’s album

32

“January 9, 1880 “Great windstorm commenced at 12 O’clockand lasted until 4 O’clock demol-ishing fences and timber by thethousands. Being the greatest everknown in the state”.

— Entry in Zimmerman ledger.

Alma, Daisy, Roxie, Lucy, Wild,Star, McCall, Alice Fanny Lady,Mary, White Face, Bring Heifer,Blossom, Pinky, Little White Face,Little Back.

— Names of cows in the

Zimmerman dairy herd, 1886.

Dairy calves at the Zimmerman cow barn.

z

Zimmerman dairy barns along Sandy (Boulevard) Road.

33

and peaches. In 1873 the first notation ofcheese being sold is found.

From this ledger we learn the house wasbuilt in 1874, not 1878 as claimed by Isobel andincorrectly noted in the National RegisterNomination. A list of materials and costs arerecorded.

The expenses in the 1870’s were modest,running just over $325.00 in 1871 and a low of$217.80 in 1879. Calico, linen, muslin, suitcloth, tin repairs, bellows, salt peter, candles,and two chairs were a few of the items pur-chased in 1871.

There is no indication of where thesethings were acquired or who might be makingthese entries. In the fall of 1872, a trunk and asatchel were added to the family inventory.

Small pleasures such as candy and“wiskey” (sic) are seldom found. But, we doknow that a canary lived at the house in 1875by the purchase of birdseed in April. InJanuary 1876 the Zimmerman wealth wasincreased with the purchase of:

“1 set of furniture $160.00, 1 or-gan $71.00, 1 spring wagon$180.00 and 1 sewing machine$65.00”.

Also recorded is income from rental property:

“Mr. Smith moved in our houseSept. 13 1869 received one monthrent $8.50”

Notations of when hired help came to work

Relaxing in the shade of the Zimmerman front porch ,

probably Independence Day holiday. Jessie (McCall)Zimmerman is seated on the left, Isobel is seated in the

swing on the right; the woman in the center is unknown.

(American flag and the porch swing are part of the

Zimmerman Collection).

were made:

“Jim Chinaman commenced Dec.15 1883 at #’O’clock wages $15dollars a month.”

The daughters of George Zimmermanwere well educated in both academics and thesocial arts. They kept busy with music, paint-ing, poetry, and writing, needle arts and

34

Zimmerman family and friends gathered on the ornately crafted front porch, c. 1910.

Front l. to r.: Clyde Stone, Isobel Zimmerman, Jessie May Zimmerman, Mary Burns, Mabel Zimmerman, Cedric Stone,Olive Zimmerman. Back l. to r.: George Zimmerman, John Burns, Jessie McCall Zimmerman, Eliza Stone.

Grape arbor was a popular setting for family activities.

Jessie May posing on the front porch steps.

35

handicrafts. There are examples of their workthroughout the house. Paintings, poems,essays, hooked rugs and music all attest totheir talent.

As children, the girls had an abundance oftoys and games with which to amuse them-selves. Holidays such as Valentine’s Day,Thanksgiving and Christmas were acknowl-edged with cards.

Outside activities included gardening—flower and vegetable, pets, picnics and familygatherings during the summer on the frontlawn. Family photos show the girls at the riverin swimming suits by a rowboat, oars in hand,or on other occasions posing with tennisrackets and croquet mallets. The presence of asidesaddle indicates that either the girls ortheir mother rode horses.

The family owned a beach house at LongBeach, Washington that George built in the1890’s. Isobel maintained ownership of thebeach house until 1990.

It appears that most, if not all, of theZimmerman family were prolific letter writers,which is no surprise for the times. Communi-cations were sent back to Jessie May and Tomduring the extended family trips while theytended the farm and to the girls while theyattended college. News about the cows andother everyday activities are found in thetreasured letters.

Most of the family members kept journalsand dairies, especially of the special trips.Even in their adult years, both Jessie May andIsobel kept dairies noting weather, workaround the house and special events. At the

end of a journal of the 1909-10 trip a list of itemspurchased was dutifully recorded:

“Indian Basket .75; Spoon AYC 1.00;Wedgwood China 1.75; SpoonVancouver 1.50; Chicago 1.00;Niagara 1.00; Boston 1.00, NY 1.00;Washington Pennant 1.50; PosterYale .25.”

Family outing on the Columbia Slough, north of the house. Isobel is the young girl, 3rd from left.

36

37

SITE ANALYSIS

The principal objective of site analysis is toinventory and document the nature, characterand condition of site features in the project site.Within the 5.98-acre site, approximately 1.5acres has been designated as a NationalHistoric Landmark. The landmark propertyincludes the house, buttery, garage, andgardens around the house.

The Zimmerman Heritage Farm site is 5.98acres. Of this project area, the museum sitemakes up 2.38 acres on the eastern portion andthe park site makes up 3.6 acres on the westernportion of the site. Within the museum site, isthe National Register Property that represents1.5 acres.

Historical Landscape Features

The relationship of the house to its sur-rounding grounds is extensively documentedin photographs from the time the family was inresidence. A number of mature trees, stillstanding today, date from before or near thetime when the farm was developed. The areanorth and east of the house was predominantlyan orchard of apples, prunes, plums, nuts, andcherries. Only six of these trees remain and arein very poor condition.

The immediate garden grounds around thehouse exist on a raised grass terrace providinga prominent setting in the countryside abovethe flood plain. The terraced area, as well asthe whole front area between the house androad, was developed as a garden to a level

above the average farmstead of the areas andthe time.

An inventory of the horticultural shrubs,flowers, fruit trees and vines has been preparedfor this area is included in the Appendix.

Remnants of a number of historic land-scape features that were part of daily life arestill present in the museum site. These historicfeatures include the buttery, wood shed, bunkhouse/garage, the grass terrace in front of theresidence along with the steps and sidewalkthrough the front garden to NE Sandy Boule-vard, the front fence and gate along NE SandyBoulevard, the driveway and the garden fencebetween the lawn terrace and the buttery.(Please refer to the Historic Landscape Featuresdrawing on page 39).

Historically, the property extended northinto the Columbia River flood plain. There isoral history about Native American villagesand encampments as well as the first primitivecabins and shelters of pioneer immigrants onthis site. These lands were isolated from theoriginal homestead with the advent of the fillfor the Union Pacific Railroad railbed along thenorth boundary of the project site.

The fields (park site) west of the residenceappear to be at or near the historic grade andcontour. This is the site of the heritage peartrees described in the National Register ofHistoric Places nomination in 1986. At the timethere were 24 pear trees existing. Of thoseidentified in 1980 seven Pyrus spp. Pound Peartrees remain in the center of the field. This rowof trees parallels the front facades of the houseand adjacent outbuildings. There is a vague

38

oral history reference to a lane extendedthrough the meadow, possibly along this rowof trees, from the house to a water well on thewest side of the original donation land claim.

Two large Juglans regia Persian Walnuttrees on the fence line between the house andwest field appear to be seedlings on the ownrootstock. One of these trees is in fair condi-tion. The other has considerable structuraldamage from storms and weather.

Near the front porch an historic wisteriavine and grape vine still exist. Other than thevegetation and trees identified, the site is

covered with wild meadow or pasture grasses,weeds, and wild flowers.

Zoning

The site is in an industrial/commercialzone. The restoration of the Zimmermanhouse museum and garden and the develop-ment of the adjacent west parcel as a park shallcomply with “Gresham Development Code,Section 3.1140 – Site Design Criteria andStandards for Community Service Develop-ments.”

Archeological Implications

The site lies within the Gresham City limitsand north of I-84. This area is designated as aHistoric and Cultural Landmarks specialpurpose district; restoration or development ofthis site must meet the requirements of “Gre-sham Development Code, Section 2.0537 –Discovery of Archaeological Objects and SitesNorth of Interstate 84.”

Vehicular Access

The existing road right-of-way (ROW) is 50feet on NE Sandy Boulevard. Proposedimprovements to NE Sandy scheduled for theyear 2000, include widening the road ROW to90 feet (refer to page 41). The proposedwidening will move the ROW nominally 25feet inside the site’s south boundary, whichwill remove or move the existing farm lanealong the south edge of the museum site next

Today, Pound Pear trees frame views of the house from Sandy Boulevard.

Trailing wisteria added to the elegance of the house.

39

HISTORIC LANDSCAPE FEATURESZIMMERMAN HERITAGE FARM

NE

SA

ND

Y B

OU

LE

VA

RD

North

0 50 100 ft.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

14

6

13

13

13

LEGEND

1. Zimmerman House

2. Buttery

3. Bunk House

4. Horse Barn

5. Grape Arbor

6. Gardens

7. Picket Fence

8. Wood Shed

9. Pear Orchard

10. Original Cabin

11. Dairy Barn12. Milking Parlor

13. Outbuildings

14. Farm Fields15. Railroad

9

Site Note: Drawing illustrates

approximate farm development

period from c. 1874 -1940’s.

40

to NE Sandy Blvd. Currently, access is fromNE Sandy to the house and farm from twodriveways; one to the residence garage and theother approximately 160 feet east, that for-merly accessed the dairy barn and milk house.If one of these driveways is closed, combined,or relocated, a new site access for the park areawill be required.

Pedestrian Access

Pedestrian access to the site is presentlylimited. However, improvements to NE Sandywill provide a bike lane and sidewalk on bothsides. The future Gresham/Fairview Trail willprovide more opportunities for pedestrianaccess. It will provide a north/south connec-tion between Springwater Trail in southGresham and the 40-Mile Loop Trail along NWMarine Drive in the north portion of the city.These trails will connect Zimmerman HeritageFarm to Blue Lake Park and the ColumbiaSlough trails. The Gresham/Fairview Trail willcross NE Sandy 0.4 miles east of the site.

Site Acoustics

Acoustic conditions have changed from therural and pastoral idyll. Railroad traffic runson the elevated railbed 100 feet north of thehouse. NE Sandy is presently a heavilytraveled two-lane highway carrying auto andtruck traffic. Road improvements will increasetraffic to five vehicle lanes, a bike lane, andsidewalk on each side. In addition to rail androad noise, the site is in the glide path for

aircraft approaching both Portland Interna-tional Airport and Troutdale Airport. Vegeta-tion buffers on the east, west, and northproperty boundaries will provide visualscreening and minimal noise buffer, butexisting noise will always be a reality.

Soils

Soils at the site are alluvial sedimentsseveral feet deep. These soils are excellent forfarming and gardening. Future constructionwork at the site will require local geo-techinvestigation to determine underlayment andsoil bearing for footings and foundations ofany future structures.

Drainage

The site is well-drained by surface drain-age moving from the southwest corner to thenortheast corner of the site. This means that allthe surface water runoff flows around thesouth and north sides of the raised terrace forthe house. At the time of this assessment, nopermanent wet areas were in evidence, al-though considerable surface water run-offpasses through the front garden area south ofthe house. It has been reported by FOHZmembers that the north and south sides of thehouse can become extremely wet and makesvehicular access difficult. Over the last fewmonths, mud has been seeping into the base-ment on the south side. This is creating moldon surfaces. Prior to this the basement hasbeen dry.

411

NE

SA

ND

Y B

OU

LE

VA

RD

North

0 50 100 ft.

EXISTING CONDITIONSZIMMERMAN HERITAGE FARM

LIG

HT IN

DU

STRIA

L Z

ON

E

Drainage

Drainage

NATIONAL REGISTER

PROPERTY

1.5 Acres

50 ‘ R.O

.W.

FUTURE

90 ‘ R.O

.W.

TOTAL PROJECT SITE

5.98 Acres

30 ‘ PGE EASEMENT

20 ‘ SEWER EASEMENT

PARK SITE 3.6 Acres

MUSEUM SITE 2.38 Acres

2 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1314

15

16

17

18

20

1. Zimmerman House2. Buttery

3. Garage4. Caretaker’s Temp. Quarters

5. Field6. Heritage Pear Trees

7. Pear Trees8. Western Red Cedars

9. Walnut Trees10. Fruit Trees

11. Oak Tree12. Cherry Tree

13. Holly Tree14. Pear Tree

15. Lawn Terrace

16. Septic Field17. Well Casing

18. Railroad

LIG

HT IN

DU

STRIA

L Z

ON

E

LEGEND

42

West side of house showing “star” motif at roof eaves. House with family in front yard terrace. Grape arbor on left and buttery to the right.

Winter view from Sandy Boulevard, c. 1970.

Buttery and garage are to the right of the house.

43

BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES ASSESS-MENT

The historic architectural elements of theZimmerman farm represent a range of domes-tic and farm facilities as denoted on the His-toric Landscape Features drawing that islocated in the Site Analysis section of thismaster plan. The architectural history of theZimmerman farm site begins in 1870 withconstruction of a log cabin as the first resi-dence. Subsequently, in 1874 the original 1800sq. ft. farmhouse was built. The farm develop-ment represents several decades of periodicconstruction that includes the renovation andexpansion of the house along with constructionof a number of outbuildings.

On 5 June 1986, the historic ZimmermanHouse with its two remaining outbuildingswithin 1.5 acres of its 2.38 acre site was listedon the National Register of Historic Places.The historic register property structures todayconsist of the farmhouse, a brick-veneereddairy building (“buttery”), and a wood-framedgarage.

A number of off-site historic farm struc-tures such as the cow barn no longer exist, andtherefore could not be assessed. These struc-tures are illustrated on the Historic LandscapeFeatures drawing, page 39. A remnant of theoriginal cow barn that burned in 1976 is theclay tile milking parlor. This building cur-rently exists east of the project site, but is notpart of the project.

The buildings below represent thosehistoric structures analyzed within the Mu-

seum Site of the project and the temporaryresidence of the caretaker that was located atthe Museum Site in 1998. Non-existing farmbuildings that were historically located withinthe Museum Site include the privy, wood shed,bunk house, and horse barn.

Existing Historic Buildings:� Zimmerman House� Buttery Building� Garage

Existing Non-Historic Building:� Temporary Caretaker’s House

Non-Existing Historic Buildings:� Privy� Wood Shed� Bunk House� Horse Barn

Existing Historic Buildings

Zimmerman House (2,525 sq. ft.)

The architectural style of the 1874Zimmerman farmhouse is classified generallyas Victorian era. However, the original houseis more representative of the “Western Farm-house” style that was built between 1875 and1900 across the American West. According toarchitectural historian Philip Dole in Space,Style, and Structure: Building in NorthwestAmerica, these new Western farmhouses as agroup were roughly similar in their volumetric

44

organization regardless of the style adopted.These rural homes were characterized

further by their simple, utilitarian appearance.Local adaptations were typically made toaccommodate local or regional influences andmaterials. Dole further notes that

“… the term “Western farmhousedesignates that extensive group ofrather plain rural homes builtthroughout the 1870 – 1900 periodin the Willamette Valley which donot comfortably fit within any na-tional stylistic architectural vogue.In some respects they are a deriva-tion of the Rural Gothic CottageStyle of the 1860s.”

With the renovation and expansion of thefarmhouse in 1899, the structure was embel-lished with Queen Anne Style detailing thatexists on the house today. One of the mostdistinctive features added to the house was thecurved, wrap-around front porch with itselaborate, ornamental woodwork. Additionaldetailing can be seen in the treatment of thesouth and west gables and trim with dramaticshadow effects from five-point star, half-moon,and spindle motifs. From its early years, thefarmhouse was distinguished in the area by itsdistinctive flower and kitchen gardens in thefront yard and grape arbor in the west sideyard.

The original 1874 structure enclosed approxi-mately 1,800 square feet on two floors. The 1899expansion on both floors brought the total floor

Kitchen access from side porch with “flower room” at the right.

Queen Anne style craftsmanship with half-moon motif on southgable.

45

area to 2,525 square feet. Today,the interior spaces include aparlor, dining room, sittingroom, bathroom, kitchen, bed-room and office sewing roomon the ground floor and bed-rooms on the second floor. In1997, a restoration-rehabilita-tion and accessibility masterplan for the house was com-pleted and is currently beingimplemented in phases.

Buttery Building (350 sq. ft.±)

The buttery was built circa1890’s west of the farmhousefor storage of milk and process-ing milk to make cheese andbutter on the family’s farm.Oral history suggests that thestructure was also a sales roomfor Zimmerman dairy prod-ucts.

The structure was builtwith wood-framed floor,walls, and pitched roof covered with wood-shingles. The buttery was constructed on a slop-ing site with two rooms on the main level and asmall crawl-space below that was reachedthrough a small opening on the downhill, northside. A brick veneer was added to the walls forinsulation value to preserve dairy products un-til removal from the building.

Prior to refrigeration, butteries such as theZimmerman’s, were cooled with large amounts

House and gardens viewed from Sandy Boulevard. Gardens are in the foreground and the brick-clad buttery and bunkhouse are shown to the right of the house behind the trees and fence.

46

of block ice, typically in a lower floor or crawl-space. This technique provided adequatecooling for temporary storage of milk andother perishable products. The structure is in aseriously deteriorating condition throughout.

Garage (500 sq. ft. ±)

A small wood framed, wood sided garagewith a dirt floor exists east of the butterybuilding. The automobile garage is c. 1920’svintage and is in a deteriorating state. Thegarage occupies the site of the former bunkhouse that can be seen in historic photographs.

Existing Non-Historic Building (TemporaryLocation)

Caretaker’s House (1,500 sq. ft.±±±±±)

In 1998, a temporary caretaker’s house waslocated at the eastern property line as aninterim security measure. The house is a singlestory, manufactured home with a low-pitchedroof. The house compromises the integrity ofthe historic site and is not appropriate for long-term presence.

Non-Existing Historic Buildings

Privy (20 sq. ft.±±±±±)

Prior to indoor toilets, the traditionalfamily outhouse was located within convenientwalking distance of the main house and away

from the water well. The location of theZimmerman’s privy is not known at this time,but with careful archaeological investigationcould be located at some future date. Oralhistory places it on the backside of the house,probably in the northeast section of the yard.

Wood Shed (750 sq. ft. ± )

The wood shed appears to have beenconstructed as an addition on the north side ofthe farmhouse in the 1890’s. The wood shedwas a two level, pitched roof structure, wood-framed with wood drop siding and double-hung windows as shown in historic photos.Oral history suggests that the top level pro-vided quarters for hired hands at one point inits use. The bottom level with large doors wasused for storage. The original wood shedcollapsed in the late 1990’s due to its deterio-rated condition.

Bunk House (1,500 sq. ft. ± )

The original bunk house was built circa1890’s east of the buttery building. Photo-graphic documentation indicates that thestructure was a two-story building of wood-framing, wood drop-siding, double-hungwindows, and a pitched roof. Oral historysuggests that the structure was used as hous-ing for hired-hands.

47

Horse Barn (3,000 sq. ft. ± )

Family photographs indicate a horse barnsouth of the bunk house that was probablybuilt around the turn-of-the-century. Theoriginal horse barn appears to be a largestructure with wood siding and a pitched roof.At this time, little information exists on theinterior layout, but presumably the buildingcontained a large interior stable area, tackroom, storage areas, and perhaps a loft. Addi-tional research is required of family recordsand period horse barns to determine thecharacteristics and spaces of the structure andits construction.

Horse barn in foreground with cow barn behind. The wooden fence separated the front yard andgardens from the barnyard. Two horses can be detected in front of the woman picking cherries.

48

CURRENT MANAGEMENT ROLES ANDRESPONSIBILITIES

Outlined below is a summary of existingproject accomplishments and detail on theresponsibilities of the City of Gresham andFriends of Zimmerman House.

Grounds Maintenance

City: Responsible for acreage west of historicproperty, east of driveway and behind house.Maintenance has included mowing, spraying,and providing materials and assistance tohistoric garden efforts as requested.

FRW/FOZH: Responsible for garden in thehistoric site, immediately around and infront of house. Work is coordinated by FOZHGarden Curator and done with volunteers.

House Maintenance & Restoration

City: Provided limited funding for houserestoration plan.

FRW/FOZH: Pay and maintain utilities.Coordinate and oversee volunteer servicesto repair and maintain home. Obtain fundingand administer contracts to makeimprovements to home.

Collections Curation

City: None.

FRW/FOZH: Protection, sorting, filing, andstorage of collection.

Volunteer Activities

City: Volunteer Coordinator helps recruit anddirect volunteers to Zimmerman HeritageFarm to help with grounds improvementprojects. City Operations provides somematerials, tools, and portable restroom toassist volunteer projects.

FRW/FOZH: Volunteer recruitment andcoordination. Coordination with City.Supervision of grounds improvement projects.Volunteer acknowledgments.

Site Security

City: None.

FRW/FOZH: Alarm system in historic house.Caretaker living on-site.

Site Development

City: Provided planning assistance andfunding assistance for site preparation forcaretaker’s residence. Installed gravel driveway. Funded and managed masterplanning process.

FRW/FOZH: Purchased and installedCaretaker’s temporary residence; administeredcontracts and building permits. Completedhouse foundation wall repairs.

49

Public Relations

City: Periodic, as tied to specific activities.

FRW/FOZH: Ongoing, carried out by FOHZmembers.

Fundraising

City: None.

FRW/FOZH: Ongoing, through donations,memberships, and grants.

The Partnership

City: Agreement with FRW needs to beupdated.

FRW/FOZH: FRW has agreements with Cityand with FOZH that need to be updated.

Mother Jessie at Union Station in Portland.

50

CULTURAL HERITAGE MARKETANALYSIS

Comparable Facilities and Demand Trends

This section of the master plan reviewsdata collected from selected historic homes.The descriptive section contains informationsuch as attendance, featured programs andattractions, staff size, and primary sources ofrevenue.

Comparable analysis is a particularlyuseful and efficient approach for assessingproposed interpretive developments, and canhelp demonstrate the attendance potential for asimilar program or facility. A number offacilities were reviewed in order to determinethe level of comparability, and six were selectedfor the purpose of investigation. The exampleswere selected with the following criteria inmind:

� Historic home with grounds, interpretiveprograms, and/or special event facilities.

� Located in the Northwest Region (Oregonor Washington).

� Located in an urban area or a rural areathat functions as a visitor destination.

� Relatively small size (less than 15,000visitors per year).

The following historic homes were selected:

� Bybee House and Howell Territorial Park� Frazier Farmstead Museum� Historic Deepwood Estate

� Jenkins Estate� Philip Foster Farm� Pomeroy Living History Farm

Each of these particular examples providesvery useful insights with regard to the inter-pretive programs and operations of historichouses as well as an indication of the potentialdemand. Selected characteristics for eachcomparable facility are summarized in Tables 1and 2.

The primary findings from this portion of thestudy include:

� Annual visitation including school groupsand special events is generally between5,000-10,000 visitors a year.

� Admission fees account for a small portionannual revenue (typically less than 10%).

� When admission fees are charged they arein the range of $2.00 - $4.00 per person.

� Education programs and special eventsserve as the primary attraction for historichouse visitors.

� Historic houses that operate with publicpartners tend to have higher operatingbudgets and more paid staff.

� Historic houses without public partnerstend to depend almost exclusively onvolunteer staff.

5 1

Table 1Comparable Historic Facilities

Description and Size

Historic Facility

Size (acres)

Primary Elements

Activities/ Programs

Annual

Visitation (includes school

groups & special events)

Bybee House and Howell Territorial Park Sauvie Island, OR

93

Historic farm, restored house and grounds

Tours, educational programs, picnics, special events

10,000

Frazier Farmstead Museum Milton-Freewater, OR

6 Historic farm, restored house, flower, herb, and vegetable gardens

Group tours, special events, weddings, and meetings

2,500

Historic Deepwood Estate Salem, OR

5 Queen Anne style house and gardens

Tours, special events, meetings

8,500

Jenkins Estate Aloha, OR

68 Log cabin house, two-story stable building, garden and tea house

Weddings, business meetings; events that use the garden

37,000

Philip Foster Farm Eagle Creek, OR

2 Historic Farm and grounds

Educational programs for children, hands-on activity, special events

5,500

Pomeroy Living History Farm Yacolt, WA

60 Historic log home, barn, and grounds

Educational programs for school groups, self-guided tours, and special events

12,000

52

Table 2Comparable Historic Facilities Historic Facility Facility

ManagementStaff Annual

OperatingBudget

1997-98 ($)

Admission Fees

Bybee House andHowell Territorial ParkSauvie Island, OR

Metro RegionalParks and OregonHistorical Society

1 curator2 part-time internsfor summer

87,834 No Admission

Frazier FarmsteadMuseumMilton- Freewater, OR

Milton- FreewaterArea HistoricalSociety

1 full-time director16 Brd of Directors30 volunteers

38,000 No Admission

Historic DeepwoodEstateSalem, OR

City of Salem andFriends ofDeepwood

1 full-time director2 volunteers5 wrk-study students

60,593 Adult: $4Students: $3Children: $2

Jenkins EstateAloha, OR

Tualatin HillsParks & RecreationDistrict

1 full-time director4 full-time positions15 part-time(weekends)

242,450 No Admission 1

Philip Foster FarmEagle Creek, OR

Jackknife-Zion-HorseheavenHistorical Society

1 full-time director8 Brd of Directors20 volunteers

28,205 Adults: nochargeStudents: $3.50

Pomeroy Living HistoryFarmYacolt, WA

Friends of PomeroyLiving HistoryFarm

3 part-time5-6 volunteers

40,000 Adults: $3.50Child 3-11: $2Under 2 free

1 Jenkins Estate grounds are open to the public. The Main House, Stable, and Gatehouseare seen by appointment only.Source: Dean Runyan Associates

53

Bybee House and Howell Territorial ParkSauvie Island, OR

The James F. Bybee House, located inHowell Territorial Park on Sauvie Island,serves as a museum of Sauvie Island lifeamong European-American settlers between1858 and 1885. The historic home, built in1856, was acquired by Multnomah County in1962. Restoration of the home was completedin 1969. The furnishings in the home wereprovided by the Oregon Historical Society andare intended to reflect how a family wouldhave lived in Oregon during the 1858-1885period.

In 1969, a barn was built for storagepurposes and an agricultural museum wasadded in 1980. Approximately one-quarter ofthe barn has been leased to the Birds of PreyRescue Northwest, Inc., a program that reha-bilitates injured raptors for release back intothe wild. The agricultural museum portion ofthe barn, created for youngsters, focuses on thefarm life and displays farm implements typicalof those used throughout Oregon from 1890 to1920. It also features horse-drawn and dairyequipment along with living history work-shops in harness, wood, leather, and metalwork.

In 1994, management of Howell TerritorialPark including the Bybee House was trans-ferred from Multnomah County to the MetroRegional Parks and Greenspaces Department.Currently, Metro owns and maintains the land,buildings, and related improvements at thePark. Occasionally, Metro does conduct

natural history education programs for thepublic.

To provide historical interpretation andvisitor services, Metro administers a $20,600contract with the Oregon Historical Society(OHS). Metro contributes $10,300 of thecontract, which is matched by MultnomahCounty. The contract agreement does notallow OHS to charge admission to the BybeeHouse or for special events; however, Metro isin the process of reviewing a new master planand will consider charging a parking fee.Currently, the contract stipulates that OHSshall provide the following activities:

� Provide research and interpretation for theBybee House.

� Hire, train, and supervise interpretive staffto lead tours, conduct living historyprograms, and provide public safety..

� Provide interior housekeeping and securityduring open hours for the structures andfurnishing.

� Book reservations for weddings andpicnics and supervise functions.

� Host special events.

Bybee House is open for viewing fromnoon to 5 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays, Junethrough Labor Day. During this time, OHSinterpreters lead half-hour guided toursthrough the home. On the last weekend onSeptember, OHS holds an annual event called“Wintering-In” which includes educationalactivities for children, food, music, craftsdemonstrations, and cider pressing along with

54

tours of Bybee House. The event has attractedbetween 3,500-5,000 visitors over the singleweekend.

Bybee House receives approximately10,000 visitors per year, which includes theattendance from “Wintering In”. OHS collectsabout $1,000 in donations per year from BybeeHouse visitors. On-site parking is available fora maximum of 500 vehicles.

Frazier Farmstead MuseumMilton-Freewater, OR

The Frazier Estate was willed to theMilton-Freewater Area Foundation. In 1984,the estate was opened to the public as theFrazier Farmstead Museum by the Milton-Freewater Area Historical Society. During thefirst ten years as a museum, the home, built in1892, was restored with the addition of periodwallpapers, floor and window coverings. Mostof the furnishings and household goods havebeen in the home since the turn of the century,with some which were brought with theFrazier family on their westward migration in1867. The home also includes items from otherpioneer families that were donated by arearesidents. The basement, which is out of thesight of the viewing public, now houses amodern kitchen, office, research and workspace which are necessary to support thespecial events and activities held in the homeand on the grounds. The property was placedon the National Register of Historic Places in1986.

In addition to the house, the six acre site

also includes six outbuildings: two barns, acombination carriage house, a milk barn andtack room, a small one-room cottage, a wood-shed, and a chicken house. These structureswere all integral parts of the working farm.Some of these structures contain old farmrelated machinery and other pioneer collec-tions. The grounds include flower, herb androse gardens, many of which are heirloomvarieties, which have been added to theproperty.

Aside from museum events, the facilitymay also be rented for weddings, receptions,class reunions, and other functions. Themuseum gift store, another source of revenue,features a variety of items appropriate to theera, many of which are produced at the mu-seum by a staff of volunteers.

An endowment fund of approximately$200,000 has been established to help fundmaintenance and operations of the site. As anaddition to the existing endowment, theSociety has obtained a $50,000 matching grantfrom a private foundation, which they havealmost matched through donations from localbanks, businesses, and private citizens.

Historic Deepwood EstateSalem, OR

Historic Deepwood Estate is a gatheringplace for tours, events, weddings, classes,meetings, and special events. The house, builtin 1894, provides a striking example of QueenAnne architecture with stained glass windows,golden oak woodwork, and a roofline of

55

multiple gables and peaks.A historic formal garden, creations of two

women who gained fame for their early 20th

century landscape design, surrounds thehouse. Hedge lined corridors, flower andgrape adorned arches lead from one “outdoorroom” to the other, creating a unique andornate outdoor space to complement the home.

In addition to its manicured landscapes,the five and a half-acre estate also includes awooded nature trail, winding creek, nativetrees, plants, and springtime flowers.

The historic home and grounds are ownedand maintained by the City of Salem. Tomaintain the grounds, the city makes use ofprison inmate labor as well as volunteers. In1997/98, the city provided approximately$4,000 to the Friends of Deepwood to fund thework/study tour guides.

The city also provided funds for promotionof the site through the production of brochuresand signage. Historic Deepwood Estate ispartially funded through revenue from theTransitory Occupancy Tax.

Friends of Deepwood manage the specialevents, programs, and activities on the site.Friends of Deepwood staff includes one full-time director as well as volunteers and work/study students who lead guided tours throughthe home. In addition to guided tours, Friendsof Deepwood offer antique classes, formalafternoon teas, lectures, and a variety of specialevents.

In 1997, Historic Deepwood Estate gener-ated about $60,000 in total revenue. Admissionfrom tours generated approximately $5,000 of

revenue (8% of annual revenue). HistoricDeepwood Estate attracts about 3,000 visitorsper year not including visitors who attendclasses, weddings, and other special events.

Other sources of revenue included grants($13,750), membership ($4,600), as well asweddings, classes, and special events ($21,000).Total revenue also includes the City of Salemcontribution toward promotion and tourguides which amounted to about $7,000.

Admission is $4.00 for adults, $3.00 forstudents & seniors, and $2.00 for children.Wedding rates are $395 for three hours ($95 foreach additional hour) for Saturdays in thesummer months. Typically, one six-hourwedding is held on every Saturday (May-Sept.)with an occasional “double booked” Saturday.

In an effort to expand the programs andactivities offered on the site, the City of Salemand the Friends of Deepwood plan to developeducational programs. The interpretive themeswill most likely focus on residential activitiesand technology from 1890 to 1930 and mentor-based programs in the nature area.

Jenkins EstateAloha, OR

The Jenkins Estate is a seven-bedroomstructure patterned after a hunting lodge builtfor the English royal family. The propertyincludes a collection of historic buildingsincluding a greenhouse for plants, an ornamen-tal pool and tea house for relaxation, a carriagehouse, and a stable for the horses with an areafor dairy cows and a covered riding area.

56

The estate also includes historic gardensthat were planted in traditional EnglishPicturesque style by the gardener for the PrimeMinister of Canada. Miles of stone linedpathways wind through the gardens.

In 1974, the Park District purchased theentire 68 acres with funds from a voter ap-proved bond issue for park acquisition anddevelopment.

Owned and operated by Tualatin HillsParks and Recreation District (THPRD), theestate was opened to the public as a rentalfacility in 1982. To manage the site, THPRDworks with a Volunteer Advisory Committeemade up of community leaders.

The main house and stable have beenrestored and are available by reservation, forweddings, receptions, business meetings,seminars, and other group functions. Thegeneral public can visit the site free of charge.The Main House, the Stable, and the Gatehouseare seen by appointment only.

A portion of the estate has been developedand is used each summer for Camp Rivendale,an outdoor program serving youth and youngadults with physical or learning disabilities.Camp Rivendale is also available, by reserva-tion, to the public for picnics and familyreunions.

The facilities include one large pavilionstyle shelter, picnic tables, and a volleyballcourt. Rental cost is $40 per hour with arequired 4-hour minimum. Full-time staffincludes a director, 2 administrative persons, agardener and a maintenance person as well asfifteen part-time employees.

Philip Foster FarmEagle Creek, OR

Philip Foster Farm was a gift to the Jack-knife-Zion-Horseheaven Historical Society by aprivate individual who wished to preserve thehome of Philip Foster, an early pioneer andcommunity leader in Oregon.

The two-acre site was once part of the 640-acre donation land claim taken by Foster in thelate 1840’s. The farm and home in Eagle Creeklies at the end of the Barlow Road, once aresting point for pioneers at the end of theOregon Trail.

Philip Foster Farm, owned and operatedby the Jackknife-Zion-Horseheaven HistoricalSociety, provides visitors the opportunity toexperience daily chores of pioneers throughhands-on activities such as washing clothes,shelling and grinding corn, and lifting bales ofhay. Special annual events include “Mother’sDay Brunch” and “Cider Squeeze/HarvestFestival”.

The farm is open to the public on theweekends from mid-June through the lastSaturday in September. Admission is free tothe general public while donations are encour-aged. In 1997, the society collected about $870in visitor donations.

From April through mid June and fromlate September through October, Philip FosterFarm offers school tours for 4th graders. 7thgrade students from Eagle Creek School givethe tours. Admission is $3.50 per student. In1997, over 4,000 students visited the farm andcontributed to over $14,000 in revenue.

57

Special events include a cider squeeze anda Mother’s Day celebration. All of the volun-teers are costumed. The store carries old-fashioned items such as soaps, candy, andsodas as well as history books and memora-bilia. Volunteers manage and staff the store.

Admissions are $3.50 for each school childand the general public is free. Staff includesone full-time director, an eight member volun-teer board of directors, as well as approxi-mately twenty volunteers to help with specialevents.

Pomeroy Living History FarmYacolt, WA

Pomeroy Living History Farm is aneducational museum that depicts 1920’s farmlife in the pre-electrical era of the rural PacificNorthwest. Assisted by costumed interpreters,visitors may grind corn and coffee, washclothes on scrubboard, use a steropticon, feedand pet the animals, pump water, use a cross-cut logging saw, and many other activities.

Pomeroy Living History Farm is ownedand operated by Pomeroy family members.The Pomeroy’s and their descendants havelived on the farm since 1910. Staff includesthree part-time positions and a staff of 5-6volunteers who give tours. Sources of revenueinclude admission fees, donations, and anendowment fund.

Pomeroy Living History Farm offersseveral different school programs for differentage groups: a “Pumpkin Patch” program isoffered for kindergarten through 1st grade; a

program for 2nd through 3rd grade focuses onwork and play on a pre-electrical farm; andprogram on self-sufficiency and recycling isoffered for 4th through 6th grade students.Admission for students is $3.00 and $2.50 forpre-school students.

Pomeroy Farm offers a variety of specialfestivals and events that include activities suchas craft demonstrations and workshops (e.g.,candle dipping, spinning, and weaving), quiltshows, feeding the animals, scarecrow making,

Native American stories and masks,hayrides, and pumpkin painting. The farm isopen to the public on the first full weekend ofeach month, June through October. Generaladmission is $3.50 for adults and $2.00 forchildren 3-11; children 2 and under are free.

M A S T E R P L A N

59

The mission of the Zimmerman Heritage

Farm is fundamentally to preserve,restore, and interpret the historic

Zimmerman dairy farm site, house, outbuild-ings, and artifacts and to benefit the commu-nity by showcasing its agriculture and dairyfarming past. The history museum complex isa cultural heritage resource that educatesvisitors about the unique history of the Zim-merman family as well as dairy farming in theregion through a variety of interpretive exhib-its, educational programs, and special events.

OVERVIEW

The primary planning focus is restorationof an historic turn-of-the century farmhouseand remnant dairy farmstead on the lowerColumbia as a living historical farm museum.To this end, the master plan emphasis is tocreate a compelling comprehensive image forthe total six acres as an integrated restoredfarm complex.

The challenge in developing facilities andprograms for Zimmerman Heritage Farm willbe to communicate history of a dairy farmwithout the dairy operation in existence. Withonly the domestic remnant of the historic farmin existence, interpretation of the dairy farmwithout farm buildings or agricultural artifactswill in the short-term influence how the storiesare communicated.

Opportunities for recreational experiencesare also planned for the benefit of the commu-nity. These recreational experiences are

envisioned as low-key forms of recreating thatare consistent with the overall mission orpurpose of the heritage park.

Museum Planning Goals

The principal objectives of the farmmuseum are education of the visiting publicand preservation of the Zimmerman collection,which includes the house and grounds. Themuseum will not be a “collecting museum” inthe conventional sense, given the extensivecollection that exists and the interpretive focuson the family. The museum can obviouslyconsider appropriate purchases or gifts ofthematically related objects if they are consis-tent with the museum’s mission and educationprogram.

The following represent facility goals to beachieved in implementing the masterplan:

� Demonstrate historical significance anduniqueness.

� Convey historical accuracy.� Provide authentic visitor experiences.� Provide low-impact recreational opportu-

nities.� Promote stewardship of cultural heritage

resources.� Preserve and restore the integrity of the

historic house, artifacts, and site.� Provide positive educational and recre-

ational experiences.� Seek revenue generation opportunities.� Foster partnerships within the cultural

heritage community.

MASTER PLAN

60

SITE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT

In the process of arriving at a final designconcept for Zimmerman Heritage Farm, threepreliminary site development concepts wereexplored in diagrammatic form. The sitedevelopment concepts were evaluated from thestandpoint of the following considerations:

1) programming2) operation of the museum site and the park

site3) public access4) site security5) pedestrian and vehicular circulation and

parking6) functional “zoning” or organizing of the

site for museum activities and park day-use and event activities

7) park maintenance and museum andadministrative activities.

An overarching design goal for the entireproject site in addition to the National Registerproperty, is to restore the historic landscape ofthe farm to the extent possible and preserve thehistoric scene. The historic home and itssetting will be visible in the surrounding areaalong NE Sandy Boulevard. Site lines to thehouse museum from both the east and westalong NE Sandy are unobstructed.

The design development concept organizesthe entire 5.98 acre project site into two sub-areas or individual sites: the Musuem Site of2.38 acres and the Park Site of 3.6 acres. Fur-thermore, within the Musuem Site is the 1.5-

acre National Register property that containsthe historic house and associated structuresand grounds.

The Master Plan Site Design drawing onthe next page illustrates that the NationalRegister site will not have access from NESandy. However, a service drive will provideaccess to the rear of the historic site within abuffer zone east of the historic site fence line.The historic fence lines will define the mu-seum. New fences will be constructed toreplicate the originals. The front walk from thehouse and the driveway will terminate at theline of the original garden fence. The southline of this fence will run just inside and northof the proposed new sidewalk on NE Sandy.

The public entrance for visitors arriving byvehicle, bicycle, and on foot will be through amain site gate on NE Sandy approximately 100feet east of the project site’s west propertyboundary. Parking is located at the rear of theproperty, out of view, screened by the highergrade of the park meadow. The east, west andnorth property boundaries are planted toscreen out contemporary development.

A proposed Visitor Center on the park sitewill have a barn or agricultural design. Re-stored outbuildings will be adapted for mu-seum operations, thereby maintaining the samelook and feel of the historic farm.

Additional parking on the grass for + 30additional cars will be available along theentrance drive west of the paved parking area.Just south of the east end of the parking lot, aturn around will provide a drop off for buses,vans, etc. West of the turn around an open area

61

0 50 100 ft.

North

NE

SA

ND

Y B

OU

LE

VA

RD

MASTER PLAN

ZIMMERMAN HERITAGE FARM

1

2 3

4 5

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

16

17

18 19

21

20

22

23

LEGEND

1. Zimmerman House

2. Buttery

3. Bunk House

4. Wood Shed

5. Service Road

6. Greenhouse Area

7. Staff Parking

8. Horse Barn

9. Gardens

10. Grape Arbor11. Visitor Center12. Livestock Shed

13. Pasture

14. Pear Orchard15. Meadow

16. Entrance Gate/Sign17. Entrance Road

18. Foot Path19. Picnicking

20. Picnic Shelter

21. Overflow Parking22. Parking

23. Visitor Drop-Off

62

of turf grass and trees will be designated forgroup and general day-use activities.

South of the visitor drop-off and turn-around area is a proposed new Visitor Center.The Visitor Center is proposed to housecommunity activities, gatherings, and specialevents and is designed to appear as a farm-type building. The Visitor Center building willalso contain restrooms for park and museumusers.

A plaza/terrace area will be developedbetween the Visitor Center and the activitylawn to accommodate group gatherings, atemporary pavilion or tent structure, orpossibly a permanent open gazebo or pavilion.Immediately south of the Visitor Center isproposed a shelter or loafing shed and smallpasture area for a dairy animal exhibit. Dairyanimal(s) would be exhibited during peakseason and on special occasions.

East of the turn-around and the VisitorCenter, the fence line for the National Registersite will provide for control points for publicaccess to and from the museum and a gate forservice, maintenance, and emergency vehicles.

Pedestrian circulation through the park siteand the museum site will be on standardizedcompacted gravel paths with steel edging,width allowing for two people abreast, and afine surface and gradient for ADA accessibility.These pathways will contribute to the casualhistoric character of the site, guide pedestriansthrough fragile areas of the lawn and gardenand serve for easy maintenance of the groundswith machinery and power equipment.

The greater area of the two west parcels

will remain as open meadow and/or pasture.The area will be bordered by farm fencing ofthe perimeter for controlled access and securityand to contribute to the farm setting for themuseum site.

Near the center of the two west parcels is arow of seven Pound Pear trees, the remainderof what was an orchard or grove of approxi-mately twenty-four trees. The merit of restor-ing the Pound Pear grove should be discussedfurther between the City and FOHZ beyondthe time constraints allowed in this masterplan.

The proposed meadow area can be used topasture farm livestock, for large gatherings orevents, or held for future recreation activities.On the north and west boundary of the site adense row of conifer trees will be planted toscreen the railroad, the adjacent developmentto the west and to enhance the farm setting ofthe museum and the park sites.

If there are any ground-disturbing activi-ties, it is recommended that an archaeologist ispresent to monitor these activities in the eventthat cultural material (prehistoric or historic) isencountered.

General site development will providestub-outs for power and water to accomodatephased improvements for the Visitor Centerand picnic facilities as well as special events.

A small pathway will be required frommuseum staff parking to the house. A chip-ping and composting area as well as groundsmaintenance needs will be located in theproposed greenhouse area.

63

MASTER PLAN COMPONENTS

Zimmerman Heritage Farm Master Plan isorganized around seven comprehensiveplanning components. The components are thefollowing:

� VISITOR FLOW� LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE� BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES� FACILITY PROGRAMMING� MUSEUM INTERPRETATION AND

EDUCATION PROGRAMS� MUSEUM COLLECTIONS MANAGE-

MENT PROGRAM� VOLUNTEERS PROGRAM

VISITOR FLOW

In designing the overall visitor experiencefor the Zimmerman Heritage Farm, the designconcept incorporates six basic planning ele-ments to handle movement of visitors. Thesesix elements and their required sequence are asfollows:

� Arrival� Decompression� Reception� Orientation� Interpretation� Feedback

The planning scenario for the flow ofvisitors at Zimmerman Heritage Farm willencompass the following sequence:

Arrival

Visitors will locate the museum site withminimal effort and difficulty. Facility identifica-tion and directional signs at strategic locationsalong I-84 and the local street system will leadvisitors directly to the museum site. A siteidentification sign and/or appropriate symbolwill be located at the Farm entrance to an-nounce arrival to the museum and direction toparking and visitor services.

Decompression/Transition

From off-site to on-site, decompression isthe transition in travel time that allows visitorsto leave the contemporary world and itsassociated obligations, and to enter the worldof another era and perhaps another culture.

At the Zimmerman project site, thistransition will happen within a restful zonealong an “country-style” access road through asmall field of meadow grass and a densebackdrop of native conifers. The access roadwill lead visitors slowly to a small parking areanear the site reception area with a drop-offzone at the Visitor Center.

Reception

From the parking area, visitors to the Farmwill enter an appropriately themed walkwayand arrive at an exterior reception area at theButtery Building. Ticketing and admissionoccurs at this interval. In the best possiblescenario, visitors will be welcomed by an

64

informed individual such as a docent/volun-teer, preferably in historic attire. When this isnot possible, appropriate signage will directvisitors to the next step in their visit. Thepublic can also receive information on relatedand regional tourism sites at this time.

Orientation

At this interval visitors are informed aboutand directed to the interpretive exhibits anddaily programs and activities at the farmmuseum complex. A variety of educationalmedia and knowledgeable docents will aug-ment this function. A retail sales functionwithin the orientation area will offer theopportunity to purchase related educationalmaterial, gifts, and memorabilia.

Interpretation

The interpretive process of communicationoccurs during this interval within the farmcomplex. At the Farm visitors will choose froman array of interpretive exhibits, live programs,and education/recreational activities of thefarm museum. Volunteers can also assist infulfilling this function. The basic interpretiveobjective at the farm is to create an authenticand engaging experience for visitors, regard-less of their age or knowledge level.

Feedback

Monitoring the public’s opinion withregard to their experience is critical to improv-

ing facilities and programs, and ultimately thesuccess of the Zimmerman facility. Visitorsreturn to the reception area on their way totheir vehicles. At this point visitors should beintercepted by staff or volunteers for opinionson their experience. Visitor opinions areelicited and tabulated for management analysisas part of an ongoing cycle of improvement.

65

ARRIVAL DECOMPRESSION

RECEPTION

GARDENS & GROUNDS

Outdoor ExhibitsLiving History• Kitchen & Flower Gardens

• Orchards

PUBLIC ORIENTATION

INTERPRETIVE TOURS

HOUSE & OUTBUILDINGS

Indoor ExhibitsLiving History• Farmhouse

• Buttery

SLUSARENKO ARCHITECTURE, PCDecember 1999

EDUCATION PROGRAM

• Horse Barn • Dairy Farming

SCHOOLS ORIENTATION

Indoor & Outdoor ExhibitsLiving History PresentationsEducational Activities

Group Lunch Area

MUSEUM SHOP

• Gifts & Mementos

• Food & Beverage• Feedback

DEPARTURE

ZIMMERMAN HERITAGE FARMVISITOR FLOW

66

LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE

Setting

The site layout and existing conditionshave shaped a site concept plan that willpreserve the house and garden site in anhistorical state. A meadow west of the housewill be developed as a general-use park forday-use activities and support facilities such asgroup picnic shelters, individual picnic tables,parking, visitor facilities, and restrooms, for theZimmerman house and gardens.

The entrance to the park and the historicsite will be provided off NE Sandy Boulevardat the west end of the park site. The entranceroad will serve as a buffer to the west bound-ary industrial zone and the north boundaryalong the railroad.

The entrance road leads to the parkingalong the north boundary, which will beobscured, from view by the higher grade andthe pear orchard in the center of the park area.

A conifer tree buffer along the west andnorth property lines will provide an evergreenbackground and screen the park from therailroad and the industrial development.Large deciduous shade trees will be planted ina loose arrangement along the park road tocomplete the park setting for the picnic areasand the group shelter. The possibility ofrestoring the Pound Pear orchard to theoriginal 24 trees should be disucssed further.

A larger portion of the west pasture areawill be established as an open meadow foropen space activities and to preserve the farm

setting as approached from the west. Theentire project site will require a perimeter fenceand gates to control the presence of vehicles onthe site. Paved parking for 26 cars will beprovided for museum visitors and day use inthe park along with overflow parking of 36spaces in the turf area in the northwest portionof the site.

A wider path running east-west along thenorth side of the garden plots will act as themain entrance to the historical site. Thispathway will lead from the entrance turnstileon the west boundary of the garden, past thestairway to the lawn terrace, continuing east tothe small terrace/patio in front of the buttery.

It is imperative this path is located asshown, as this pathway is the watercourse fordrainage for a greater portion of the park site’sopen space meadow lying west of the historicalsite. A drain pipeline at least eight inches indiameter in a gravel-filled trench will extendeast past the buttery and bunk house, to an exitdischarge north of the bunk house.

The lawn terrace south of the house will bebordered on three sides with planting of thehistorical plants inventoried and preserved atthe site. One of the most notable plants in thefront yard was a large, trailing wisteria thatwill be re-introduced at the front porch. (Seethe Appendix for the plant lists.)

A special feature of the garden will includereconstruction of the grape arbor along thewest side of the house. The exit for the houseand garden tour will be through the arbor asthis route will be ADA accessible with regardto grade (percentage slope).

The grape arbor will be restored in its original appearanceand location.

67

The yard east of the garden and house inthe historical site will be maintained as amown farm service yard. This area will be thesetting for the buttery, bunk house, and ulti-mately the reconstructed horse barn. Simpleborders of woody flowering shrubs will linethe fences to complete the setting.

Gardens

The master plan proposes to establish aseries of planting beds with ADA accessiblewalkways between, perhaps of grass, barkdust,or wood chips. The restoration of the gardensis illustrated on the next page. The beds wouldbe elongated along a north/south axis for thebest sun exposure for all plantings. It isenvisioned the garden west of the central walkwill be planted with floral displays and thearea east of the walk will be for vegetable plots.Planting the borders adjacent to the centralwalk to permanent perennials will add some-what to the structure of the garden in thedormant seasons.

Restored gardens and grounds will capture the appearance and fragrances of the historic landscape of the farmhouse.Note the wisteria trailing along the front porch.

68

Interpreters in the restored gardens will explain to visitors how the Zimmermans tended the kitchen and flower gardens and theirimportance in family’s daily life. The restored horse barn and fences are shown reastored to their orginal appearance and location.

69

LEGEND

1. Zimmerman House

2. Buttery3. Bunk House

4. Horse Barn5. Grape Arbor

6. Vegetable Garden7. Floral Garden

8. Lawn Terrace9. Wood Shed

10. Farm Service Yard

11. Historic Plantings12. Sidewalk

13. Service Access

North

0 50 ft.

FARMHOUSE GARDENS AND GROUNDS

ZIMMERMAN HERITAGE FARM

National Register Site(1.5 Acres)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

13

12

11

NE

S

AN

DY

B

OU

LE

VA

RD

70

BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES

The architectural components ofZimmerman Heritage Farm represent bothhistoric and new structures and are allocatedbetween the two project partners, the City ofGresham and FOZH. The historic architecture

includes both restoration and rehabilitation ofexisting buildings and structures and reason-ably accurate reconstruction of former farmbuildings. These represent only those historicstructures that existed within the NationalRegister Site. New buildings will be compat-ible with farm buildings of the period ofinterpretation, i.e. late 1800’s – early 1900’s.

Museum Site Buildings

Historic Buildings:

Zimmerman House (restored) 2,525 sq. ft.Buttery Building (restored) 350 sq. ft.Privy (reconstructed) 20 sq. ft.Wood Shed (reconstructed) 750 sq. ft.Bunkhouse/Caretaker’s Quarters (recon-structed) 1,500 sq. ft.Horse Barn (reconstructed) 3,000 sq. ft.

New Building:

Green House (new) 200 sq. ft.

Temporary Building:

Caretaker’s House (existing) 1,500 sq. ft. ±

Park Site Buildings

New Buildings:

Visitor Center (new) 3,000 sq. ft.Livestock Shed (new) 1,000 sq. ft.Picnic Shelter (new) 900 sq. ft.The historic home’s exterior and interior will be restored to its original elegance at the turn of the century.

71

Museum Site Buildings

Zimmerman House

In 1997, a restoration-rehabilitation andaccessibility master plan for the house wascompleted for FOHZ and is currently beingimplemented in phases as funding becomesavailable. A number of exterior and interiorimprovements are scheduled throughout forrehabilitation of the two-story, historic struc-ture. The improvements include exteriorpainting, roofing, interior rehabilitation,electrical, among others.

Guided tours of the house will providevisitors insight into the life and times of theZimmerman family and their dairy farm.Docents in period dress will guide visitorsthrough the individual rooms of the housebeginning at the front door and exiting at thedining room door, thereby reducing congestionof groups touring the house.

Initially, a small museum store sales area isenvisioned in the kitchen area as visitors exit.Once the buttery building is restored, themuseum sales function will be relocated fromthe house to the buttery. The store area willoffer a range of appropriately themed andrelated merchandise for sale to generaterevenue.

All improvements will be consistent withthe conditions of National Register of HistoricPlaces. Improvements to the historic houseshould abide by the U.S. Secretary of Interior’sStandards and Guidelines for RehabilitatingHistoric Buildings.

Buttery Building

Proposed museum uses for the butteryinclude visitor reception and ticketing, educa-tion demonstrations/presentations, and asmall museum store. A terrace area outside thebuttery will serve as the arrival and assemblyarea for visitors. Museum visits will begin at

“Tip” in front yard. Gate, fence, and buttery beyond. Buttery and bunk house beyond fenceline.

72

the buttery. Living history demonstrations willexplain the history and function of the butteryfor the Zimmerman family. In later years of themuseum’s operation, a small section of thebuttery will be set aside for admissions andmuseum store sales.

Privy

Authenticity would suggest consideringreconstruction of a typical outhouse of the eraas an additional and necessary architecturalelement of the historic landscape of the site.The time period for overall interpretation ofthe family’s history would include the exist-ence of the privy.

Wood Shed

The new wood shed addition will bereconstructed as part of the overall historic siterestoration program. The wood shed will beused for house museum operations that will bedetermined in the future, either as publicprogramming spaces, “back of house” manage-ment spaces, or perhaps collections storage andcuration.

Bunk House

The new bunk house will also be recon-structed as an important architectural elementin the site restoration plan. The existing wood-framed garage occupies the site of the originalbunkhouse. The garage will be dismantleddue to its deteriorated condition. The new

bunk house will expand the opportunities formuseum operations and programs, such asadministration, education, site storage, amongothers. The second floor of the bunk house isproposed as quarters for the on-site caretaker.

Horse Barn

The horse barn will be rebuilt in the long-range plan to accommodate a range of mu-seum programs. Given the potential of a largeinterior volume of space and smaller associatedspaces, the new horse barn would provideadditional museum programming space, suchas large exhibits of farm machinery, changingexhibits and exhibit preparation, or ancillarysupport functions.

Greenhouse/Grounds Area

Although not part of the historic architec-tural record for the farm, a new greenhousewill be constructed out-of-view for the historicsite’s restoration and maintenance program.The greenhouse will provide space for plantpropagation and storage for materials andequipment used in vegetable and flowergarden curation. The greenhouse will also beused for general propagation of period plantspecimens for public sale as part of an on-going museum revenue development program.

Grounds maintenance needs will belocated here for equipment, supplies, chipping,composting, and trash deposit.

73

Park Site Buildings

Visitor Center

A new Visitor Center will be constructed asa central focal point for visitor arrival anddeparture. The Visitor Center will be a multi-use facility for park and museum program-ming. The building will contain spaces formuseum arrival, reception, and orientation aswell as for a range of year-round indooreducation programs and activities, specialevents, restrooms, and regional visitor infor-mation.

The structure will be designed within thearchitectural vernacular style of barns or farmstructures, thereby adding to the overallcharacter of the historic landscape of the site.The exterior of the Visitor Center will becharacterized by a pitched roof, wood siding,and windows and building details typical ofthe period.

An alternative to a newly designed VisitorCenter is to renovate an existing barn, if oneshould become available in the area. The barncould be relocated to the park site and adaptedfor Visitor Center operations.

Interior spaces can be expressive of wood-timber barn loft construction, but will beoutfitted with furnishings and equipment toaccommodate the market for special events inunique settings. All interior spaces will beenvironmentally conditioned for comfort andwill meet contemporary mechanical andelectrical codes for energy efficiency.

Associated with the Visitor Center is an

arrival and drop-off area that features a plantcovered arbor structure, perhaps modeled afterthe grape arbor on the museum site.

Livestock/Loafing Shed

Adjacent to the Visitor Center, but de-tached, will be a small livestock “loafing shed”that will be an element of the heritage educa-tion program. The livestock shed and associ-ated open-space pasture along NE Sandy willprovide a shelter and space for a dairy cow(s)on a limited or seasonal basis.

The physical character and appearance ofthe shed should contribute to the historic site’sambiance. Educational programming will takeplace here for livestock demonstration activi-ties such as milking, feeding, and livestockmanagement. A regulated animal maintenanceprogram will control animal waste and objec-tionable odors.

Picnic Shelter

In the western portion of the project siteclose to parking, a group picnic shelter(s) willbe available for leisure activities. The shelterwill be designed for 50 or more visitors andconstructed within the agricultural architecturevernacular of the overall project site in order tocontribute to the historic landscape appear-ance. The shelter will be available for reserveduse by groups.

74

Future Visitor Center, west of the Zimmerman house, will be designed to accommodate a wide range of activities and to enhance the overall historic landscape setting.

75

Picnic Table Area

In the same general area as the PicnicShelter, park facilities are allocated for casualdrop-in picnicking where visitors can use thepark at any time when the park is open,without needing a reservation.

FACILITY PROGRAMMING

A variety of educational and recreationalactivities are envisioned for the site. Some ac-tivities will directly serve the educational mis-sion. Other complementary uses will be accom-modated that will help sustain the site economi-cally.

� Cultural Heritage Tourism - Generaladmission museum tours operated byFOZH, living history program, and chang-ing exhibits.

� Visitor Information - Information andorientation of area and regional attractions;combined with retail sales operations.

� Schools - Grade school programs (on-siteand off-site) and tours. Tied to State ofOregon’s Certificate of Initial Mastery(CIM) and Certificate of Advanced Mas-tery (CAM) higher education benchmarks.

� Community Education Programs - Pro-grams offered through the Gresham Parks

and Recreation Division for all ages (suchas heirloom gardening, genealogy, restora-tion techniques, old-fashioned craft skills,watercolor painting, etc.).

� Community Service - Community serviceand/or internships with middle and highschools for on-grounds projects or volun-teering in programs and events.

� Other Partnerships - Relationships withother appropriate groups such as withElderhostel and Regional Arts and CultureCouncil.

� Special Heritage Events - AnnualZimmerman seasonal thematic events thatrelate to the mission of the history museumcould include:

Spring:- Easter Egg Hunt – egg-dying and other

traditions.- Mother’s Day Tea – with flower

displays, art show, musical concert.- Regular sale of plants – at farm site, at

Farmer’s Markets, and other venues.

Summer:- Regular sale of produce, plus plants,

flowers, and herbs.- Isobel Zimmerman July 3rd birthday

party.- July 4thcelebration.

Fall:- Dairy Days/Harvest Fair – live dairy

cow(s) & other livestock, antique trac-tors and farm equipment demonstra-

History comes alive during educational activities atspecial events on the Zimmerman Heritage Farm.

76

tions, pound pear recipe contest, ruralcrafts, (bring back the old county fair).

- Regular sale of produce, plus plants,flowers, and herbs.

- Domestic events – box socials, quiltingbees, church suppers.

Winter:- Christmas on the Farm - sale of orna-

ments, appropriate traditional crafts,and other hand-made items; lightedChristmas tree in the yard through theseason; caroling.

� Other related special events: sponsored onthe grounds by City or FOZH (such asevening concerts and art exhibits in thepark).

� Site Rentals - Reserved use of grounds andgroup-shelter for private gatherings,picnics, receptions, small weddings,meetings, business events, and tourismtours, coordinated with the local visitor/lodging industry.

� General Site Use - Use of non-museumareas of site by general public for strolling,jogging, picnicking, and viewing.

Thematic events such as “Dairy Days” would allow visitors to become involved in an array of educational experiences.Live dairy cows would be on exhibit for visitors to experience and understand life on a traditional dairy farm of thePacific Northwest.

77

INTERPRETATION AND EDUCATIONPROGRAM

Two primary goals for the ZimmermanHeritage Farm’s interpretive and educationprogram are:

� Conveying historical accuracy.� Providing authentic visitor experiences.

Interpretive Approach

Interpretation for the Zimmerman Heri-tage Farm will focus principally on the livesand times of the Zimmerman family and ondairy farming in East Multnomah Countyregion. History will be communicated throughliving history presentations, exhibits, andeducational programs and activities.

Interpretation like restoration should bethoroughly analyzed and planned. Just as thegrounds and the house will have a long-rangeplan, so will the interpretation and publiceducation program. House and gardeninterpretation and educational programmingshould go hand in hand and complement eachother, thereby creating a seamless transitionbetween the two.

In developing a long-range educationalprogram, the surrounding museums andrelated visitor facilities will be surveyed andvisited in order not to duplicate programsand/or information. In the greater Portlandarea visitors can learn about: the Oregon Trail,Fort Vancouver and HBC, Oregon State history,

the Columbia River, Native Americans, andnatural history.

While many similar institutions have beencontacted for market research information,additional contacts will to be made when fullydeveloping an interpretation and educationalprogram. These contacts should be helpful indetermining what information should beincluded, but also in forming partnerships fordeveloping shared programming, marketing,and technical assistance.

This master plan offers an overview of theeducational potential and preliminary interpre-tive opportunities of the Zimmerman familyand the historic site. An interpretive masterplan should be undertaken in the future tocreate a comprehensive plan for interpretationand educational programming for the facility.

Interpretive Design Factors

Interpretive design is a specific process ofcommunication that is intended to educate,perhaps entertain, and hopefully motivatemuseum visitors to learn more. Interpretationis not a product or particular thing, but aprocess.

With regard to the Zimmerman HeritageFarm, it is important to realize interpretation isa communication process, designed to revealmeanings and relationships of our natural andcultural history - in this case, the stories ofdomestic and field life of the Zimmermanfamily on a dairy farm in East MultnomahCounty, Oregon. This is accomplished throughdirect, first-hand experiences with state-of the-

78

art exhibits, media, and engaging educationalprograms.

Interpretive Opportunities

The typical historic house museum offers tovisitors the opportunity for a glimpse of a place,people, time period, and/or activity, i.e. a “snap-shot” in time. In order toavoid confusing visitorsand depleting resources, aspecific time period to inter-pret has been selected.

With the time period forinterpretation selected, adetailed history research ofvisual and textual resourcescan begin and can be refinedto provide visitors with asmuch accurate, exciting andenjoyable information aspossible.

The broad interpretivetime period of the Zimmer-man family ranges from1851 with the arrival of Ja-cob & Lena Zimmerman inthe Oregon Territory to 1992with the death of IsobelZimmerman, the youngestand last granddaughter ofJacob and Lena.

The years between 1899 and 1915 are thefullest and happiest for the ZimmermanFamily. This could arguably be considered the“golden age” of the Zimmermans. The last

child, Isobel, had been born, extensive remod-eling to the house had been completed, thedairy farm with its large herd of Holsteins wasoperating over an extensive land area withnumerous barns and outbuildings constructed,and the family was ready to take on the world.This is also a dynamic and exciting time for theUnited States, Portland, and the region.

One approach to explorefurther would be developingthe overall interpretive strategyaround Isobel’s life as a youthand, through the eyes of thisyoung girl, interpret the lifeand times of the Zimmermanfamily at the turn of the centuryon their dairy farm in EastMultnomah County. Usingyoung Isobel as the story-tellerand a “window into the waythings were,” interpretive andeducational programs couldpresent a comprehensive andcompelling picture of thefamily’s history and the social,political, and economic times atthe turn of the century. Ex-panded interpretation couldalso talk about the future ofyoung Isobel as she makes herway through life as she livesout her years in the family

house in North Gresham.The proposed time period for interpreting

the historic house as an architectural artifact is1874 to perhaps the 1920’s. This encompasses

The years between 1899 and 1915are the fullest and happiest for theZimmerman Family. This could ar-guably be considered the “golden age”of the Zimmermans.

Isobel Zimmerman in her youth.

79

the original structure and subsequent renova-tion and expansion along with associatedoutbuildings.

In order to provide on-going educationalprograms for both adults and school agechildren there are several related themes thatcan be developed into special programs. Thesecan take place in the form of workshops,lecture series, or programs related to specialevents, such as the upcoming Lewis and Clarkcelebration.

Developing partnerships with othercultural history organizations for publicprogramming would also be beneficial andcost saving in addition to broadening theaudience and support base.

Preliminary Education Programs and RelatedActivities

� Permanent indoor interpretive exhibits.� Living history interpretation/presenta-

tion/demonstration.� Outdoor agricultural exhibits.� Outdoor hands-on exhibits (schools)� Docent-guided tours; self-directed tours.� Changing exhibits.� Special educational events, performances.� Regional visitor information on other

cultural heritage attractions.

While working on the restoration of thehouse and grounds, Friends of ZimmermanHouse need to cultivate relationships andpartnerships, create public awareness, anddevelop support. Public programming is a

good tool to this end. Gresham Parks andRecreation Division would be the most logicalpartner for such workshops, but perhaps notthe only partner.

Each hands-on, “doing” workshop wouldhighlight a particularly instructive aspect ofthe Zimmerman House or its collection as wellas the restoration of the house and the gardensand grounds. A small sampling of workshopscould include:

� These Old, Old Houses and RestoringThem.

� Arts and crafts of the late 19th – early 20th

century.� Creating a Victorian Garden.� Plant identification by Lewis and Clark.� Following your family tree across the

Oregon Trail.

A once-a-year event to highlight the houseand the work being done could be a “BirthdayParty” for Isobel. This could be a “ticketed”(paid admission) event or volunteer donation.

Activities could include: sponsored icecream social on the lawn, tours of the houseand grounds, updates on restoration projectand future plans, children’s games on the lawn,open air concert, antique car show, making icecream, churning butter and cow milkingdemonstrations.

When developing any sort of publicprogramming, the temptation is to do toomuch. Thought needs to be given to schedul-ing, budget, logistics, location, public safetyand wear and tear on the house and grounds.

80

A variety of “hands-on” educational activities will be available for visitors of all ages as they learn “what it was really

like” to live on a turn-of-the-century dairy farm.

81

Visitors to the farm can learn about traditional dairy farm

life through live interpretation and “hands-on” exhibitsand activities such as cream separation or butterchurning .

“One cow in the herd bows to none-she’s the boss. She has uncontestedaccess to the best pasture, the deepestshade, the choicest spot in the milk-ing line-up, or any other privilege shedesires.”

— The Complete Cow.

82

Related Themes for Interpretive Programming

Principal thematic subject areas to researchand develop for an overall interpretive themestructure and storyline content include thefollowing:� Zimmerman family.� Dairy farm life – daily domestic and field

routine.� Dairy agriculture - Late 19 C. to early 20 C. in

the Lower Columbia River region.� Dairy farming practices, techniques, and

products.� Dairy farming technology & innovation.� Historic farmhouse styles and barn types of the

region.

Listed below is an elaboration of the topicsoutlined above. These are possible sub-topics toexplore with regard to the content in interpre-tive storyline development and for use in avariety of educational programs and activities atthe museum site.

Zimmerman Family.

Family background:- Jacob and Lena.- George and Jessie.- Daughters: Jessie , Olive , Mabel, and Isobel.

Zimmerman Dairy Farm Life.

Roles on the farm:- Family: Adults, children.- Hired help.

Jessie May Zimmerman (2nd row, first from left in striped dress). School buildingin photo was located in front of existing Wilkes School and in the center of I-84.

Mother Jessie ready to transport Isobel to her student teaching position in Brownsville, OR, 1923.

83

Zimmerman domestic life:- Daily routine of family members.- Seasonal changes and routine.- Culture - local venues, travel.- Education - local schools (Wilkes School).- Recreation - acitivities of family, friends.- Social - neighbors, civic participation.- Religion - local Methodist Church.

Zimmerman field life:- Daily work routine.

livestock feeding,cow milking,animal management.

- Seasonal work routine.summer pastures v. winter hay,breeding, calving, de-horning.

The Zimmerman’s front porch was a popular gathering spot. Buttery and bunk house can be seen behind the fence and gate.

84

Dairy agriculture (Late 19 C. - early 20 C. in theLower Willamette Valley/Lower Columbia regionwitnessed by Zimmerman Family)

Farming developments and practices.Donation Land Claim Act.Farm locations: land selection.Farm landholdings, sizes.Dairy herd sizes.Dairy breeds and selection.Techniques: Milking, pasturing, haying, silage.Products: Milk, cream, butter, cheeses.Hay, other crops.Markets, sales.Local creameries, distribution.

Technology & Innovation.

Barn function, configuration, and operation.Milk processing machinery.Field machinery.

Buildings & Structures.

Historic farmhouse styles and barn types of theWillamette Valley/Lower Columbia.Regional influences and responses.Victoria era farmhouses.Barns, butteries, milking parlors, and typicaloutbuildings & structures.

Although not found on the Zimmerman farm, this “off-

the-shelf” barn venitilator/weather vane can still be seen

on dairy barns in the area.

85

Zimmerman dairy barns along Sandy (Boulevard) Road.

86

NATIVE AMERICANS LOWER COLUMBIARIVER

ZIMMERMAN FAMILY DAIRY FARM LIFE

Indian John• Zimmerman friend

Chinooks• Lifeways• Resources• Ne-cha-co-kee Village

Jacob (1816 - 1899)

Lebolina (1827 - 1887)

• Immigrants to U.S.• Married, 1845• Oregon Trail, 1851

• Moved onto farm, 1870

George H. (1852 - 1915)

Jessie (McCall)(1862 - 1943)

• Married 1883

Daughters:

Jessie May (1884 - 1968)

Olive Hope (1889 - 1980)

Mabel June (1891 - 1914)

Isobel Faith (1899 - 1992)

Roles:

Traditional/Customary

Zimmerman Family• Adults

• Children

Hired help

Domestic Life:

Daily, Seasonal Routine

Social/Cultural

• Travel, Grange

Education• Wilkes School

• U. of Oregon

Religion

Field Life:

Daily, Seasonal WorkHired Help

Foods & Meals:• Traditional menu• Kitchen garden• Meal preparation• Dining traditions

SOURCE: SLUSARENKO ARCHITECTURE, PC

Exploration

Fur Trade

Overland Migration• Oregon Trail

• Immigrant farmers• Settlement in region

1851-1992 Historical Period1899-1915 Interpretive Period

[ Isobel Faith Zimmerman as a youth ]

87

DAIRY FARMINGBUILDINGS

& STRUCTURES

TECHNOLOGY

& INNOVATION

Donation Land Act• Immigrant farmers• Wilmot DLC purchase

Dairy Farm Locations:

Personal PreferencesLand Selection

Zimmerman Holdings• Farm size• Ownership, lease

Zimmerman Dairy Herd• Herd size

• Cow Breeds- Holstein

• Milk production

Practices & Techniques• Milking• Pasturing

• Haying• Ensilage

Traditional Dairy

Products• Milk, cream, butter, cheese

Orchards, Trees• Pioneer orchards

• Zimmerman orchards

and trees

- Pound Pears - Persian Walnuts - Other

Other Traditional FarmAnimals:

• Beef, chickens, other

Markets• Creameries, sales• Barter

Traditional Sequence• Log cabin, hewn log

house, period house

• Zimmerman log cabin

Regional Farmhouses• Preferences• Location, style, materials• Zimmerman house - Kitchen & flower gardens - Grape & wisteria vines - Shade, ornamental trees - Fences, arbor

Regional Barns• Purpose• Preferences, influences

• Location, site• Zimmerman barns

Out-Buildings• Buttery

• Privy• Horse barn• Bunk house• Chicken coop, other

Typical Dairy Barns• Functional layout• Configuration

• Operation• Livestock feeding• Manure disposal

Milking & Processing• Hand milking• Milking machines

• Cream separators• Butter churns• Storage, transport• Commercial creameries

• Other

Field Machinery• Plowing, tilling

• Sowing• Hay mowers, loaders• Other

Barn Storage• Hay mow• Hay loft, hay forks• Other

Field Crops• Hay, corn, other

ORGANIZATION OFPRELIMINARY

INTERPRETIVE CONTENTZIMMERMAN HERITAGE FARM

88

COLLECTIONS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The collection is often referred to as the“heart and soul” of the musuem – it is theessence of the musuem. For history museums,collection and preservation of the materialculture from our past, i.e. the objects, is one ofthe most important museum functions.

The Zimmerman Heritage Farm has anextensive, intact collection of householdartifacts that spans over 115 years of theZimmerman family’s day-to-day residence inthe house and occupation of the farm. Thehistoric house itself along with the associatedbuildings, gardens, and landscape are part ofthe material collection of the family. There-fore, given the extent of the collection, theZimmerman Heritage Farm will not be a“collecting” museum in the traditional sense,but will draw extensively upon the diversecollection to interpret the Zimmerman familyand its past.

The quantity and quality of theZimmerman collection sets it apart from a largemajority of historic house museums thattypically have an historic house or site as thecultural artifact, but must furnish and outfit thehouse exhibits with period pieces of a particu-lar time. With the richness of its collection, theZimmerman Heritage Farm can authenticallyinterpret Zimmerman history with actualobjects of the family.

The “household” collection of the family isquite extensive, while objects relating to theirdairy farming history are limited in number.In this case, it will be necessary to research and

acquire appropriate farm machinery andimplements to add to the material collection ofthe museum and to use for educational exhib-its. Much of the Zimmerman object collection isorganic and therefore will deteriorate until acontrolled interior environment is established.

Preparation of the Collections Manage-ment Plan is a high priority in the near futureeven though preliminary documentation of thecollection is proceeding. The CollectionsManagement Plan is a written document thatwill establish the policy and procedures forcaring for the Zimmerman collection.

The collections management plan is simplya detailed, written document that sets forth thepurpose of the Zimmerman Heritage Farm andits goals, and explains how these goals areinterpreted in its collections activity. Thepolicy serves not only as a guide for staff, butmore important as a public statement of themuseum’s professional standards regardingobjects and materials in its care.

The management document should becomprehensive, but does not necessarily needto be extremely detailed. This document willbe an important resource in writing grants andfundraising.

The implementation of the managementplan will be the responsibility of the House andGarden Curators and the Director. The man-agement plan should address both the “hu-man-engineered” objects and the “natural”objects of the gardens.

The management plan for the long-termcare of objects and plants of the Zimmermancollection should be written with the following

Mabel Zimmerman

89

priorities in mind:� Improve environmental conditions of the

collection.� Inventory, register, and catalogue objects to

achieve documentary control of thecollection.

� Conserve objects within the collection.� Expand knowledge through in-depth

research of the collection.� Enhance public understanding and appre-

ciation of the collection through dissemina-tion of information about it.

In writing the Zimmerman HeritageFarm’s collection management plan, thefollowing aspects should be addressed throughpolicies and procedures:� Museum mission or purpose.� Collecting goals.� Loaning procedures (incoming and outgo-

ing objects).� Criteria and methodology for acquiring

objects.� Deaccessioning (selling or disposing of

artifacts) procedures.� Documentation, registration, and catalog-

ing procedures.� Criteria and conditions for storage of

artifacts and archival materials.

Professional development of curatorialpersonnel will be a high priority. Continuingeducation opportunities are available throughlocal, state, regional, and national musuem andcultural heritage associations in the form ofworkshops, seminars, classes, books, videos,

and other resources. Networking with othercultural heritage institutions to address ques-tions or problems is invaluable for smallmuseums like Zimmerman Heritage Farm.

Isobel Zimmerman

90

feel welcome, and appropriately acknowl-edged for their valuable contributions.

The typical considerations in preparing theZimmerman Heritage Farm Volunteer Programinclude the following:

� Job Descriptions and Responsibilities� Recruiting Volunteers� Selecting Volunteers� Placement of Volunteers� Training� Performance Review� Coordination Meetings� Time Scheduling and Documenting� Recognition of Volunteers

The Volunteer Coordinator will haveresponsibility for directing the VolunteerProgram and coordinating volunteers. Thiswill be done in association with the Director.Membership in the American Association ofMusuem Volunteers (AAMV) should beconsidered when funds allow. AAMV is aninvaluable professional resource for informa-tion, assistance, and training for the VolunteerCoordinator and museum volunteers.

Mabel Zimmerman

VOLUNTEERS PROGRAM

In a small museum such as ZimmermanHeritage Farm, volunteers are often consideredthe lifeblood for day-to-day operations.Throughout the year, they provide countlesshours of service performing a vast array oftasks in support of the museum’s mission andprograms. Small museums typically have fewfull-time, paid professional staff and thereforerely on the efforts of a group of dedicatedvolunteers.

Volunteers, sometimes referred to asdocents, are not substitutes for paid profes-sional staff. Their work should complement,not duplicate, the work of the paid staff.Volunteers bring many diverse skills to amuseum. The early years of any fledglingmuseum preparing to operate for the publicbenefit must rely heavily on the contributionsof enthusiasm, time, and money from a groupof volunteers.

From its inception to subsequent on-goingoperation, volunteer groups must be organizedto effectively utilize their time. An effectivevolunteer group will advance the museum’smission when it works within the parametersof an organized Volunteers Program.

The preparation of a Volunteers Programfor Zimmerman Heritage Farm must be a highpriority in the early years of development andwhen completed and in place will effectivelycoordinate and direct the volunteers’ efforts.Volunteers for the Zimmerman Heritage Farmwill be giving their time to the museum. Theymust be treated with every courtesy, made to

I M P L E M E N T A T I O N

91

Implementation of Zimmerman HeritagePark is expected to occur in phases over anextended period of time. Development of

programs and construction of facilities aspresented in the preceding section is outlinedin the following sub-sections:

� PROJECT PHASING� MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION

Three phases for facility development andoperations are outlined below with regard tofacility management, programming, and siteimprovements. Suggested division ofresponsibilites between FOHZ and the City isoffered. However, these recommendations areintended to be flexible and dependent uponavailable resources and ability of either or bothparties or others to participate in the imple-mentation process.

Updates of this Master Plan should becompleted after each 5-year interval to recog-nize completed activities, acknowledge anynew implementation and operation activities,and evaluate changes in priorities. Annualreviews of implementation progress should becompleted as well.

Each project development phase contains arange of activities to be undertaken within thedesignated time period. No attempt has beenmade to prioritize these activities, since theproject partners should review and prioritizeeach phase annually to assess and establishnew priorities.

It should be noted that the historic site is“gated”, that is, has an admission charge for

entering the grounds, while the park site is“ungated” and is open to the public without anadmissions charge.

All Gresham Parks & Recreation siteregulations will apply to the site. This includesthe operating hours, i.e. open from dawn todusk.

PROJECT PHASING

PHASE 1. 1-5 YEARSSTABILIZATION OF THEHERITAGE RESOURCE

PHASE 2. 6-10 YEARSFULL TIME OPERATION

PHASE 3. 11+ YEARSLONG RANGE OPERATION

PHASE 1. 1-5 YEARSSTABILIZATION OF THE HERITAGERESOURCE

Management Activities

a. Legal relationships/documents:� Revise Partnership agreement between

City & FRW.� Revise agreement between FRW & FOZH.� Develop mission statement, bylaws,

policies and procedures for ZimmermanHeritage Farm.

� Develop ZHF Board of Directors.� Develop Caretaker’s Agreement.

IMPLEMENTATION

92

b. Museum Staffing:� Museum Director (Part time).� House/Collections Curator (Volunteer).� Garden Curator (Volunteer).� Volunteers Coordinator (Volunteer).� Caretaker (On-site; special agreement)

c. Professional Development:� Training and development of Board, staff,

and volunteers.� Professional associations, e.g. Oregon

Museum Association, Historic PreservationLeague of Oregon, American Associationof Museums, Association of Living Histori-cal Farms & Agricultural Museums,American Association of State and LocalHistory, American Association of MuseumVolunteers.

� Professional development workshops,continuing education.

� Network with cultural history institutions.

d. Prepare Fundraising Plan:� Establish membership development pro-

gram.� Establish capital campaign.� Enhance existing operations/maintenance

endowment.

e. Volunteers Program:� Develop volunteer partnerships, recruit-

ment.� Establish Volunteers Program.� Initiate internship program with colleges,

universities.

f. Collection Curation:� Establish curation criteria.� Continue evaluating and editing collection.� Continue filing and storing.� Document and develop computer database

of existing historic plant material.� Complete archival research.� Establish interim collection storage plan.g. Resolve Caretaker’s temporary residence per-mitting status.h. Prepare Business Plan.i. Prepare Marketing Plan.

Programming Activities

a. Building awareness, Friends of ZimmermanHeritage Farm group, and funds:� Formally identify and sort resource groups.� Continue July 4th annual event.� Limited volunteer partnerships to help

preserve house and build gardens.� Limited off-site programs & traveling

cultural heritage educational “product”.� House open on “special” limited basis.� Develop education program with schools

for CIM/CAM benchmarks.� Develop separate brochures and materials

for schools.

b. The City’s role in supporting and building pro-grams includes the following that can begin nowand continue to build through the “openingdoors,” first phase:� Advertise and publish materials.� Provide set up space to display at other

community events.

93

� Develop programming for S.U.N. Schools/Community schools.

� Jointly manage volunteer programmingwith FOZH; includes maintaining data-base, recruitment, set up, and recognition.

� Develop link to Seniors Center, SeniorCitizens coalition and ECCC (East Co.Caring Community) to develop seniorsand inter-generation programming.

� Strengthen relationship with Chamber ofCommerce and Gresham Area VisitorAssociation.

Site Development Activities

MUSEUM SITE DEVELOPMENT (FOZH):

Site� Remove non-conforming plants.� Complete planting beds around house and

on upper terrace.� Build holding garden beds in lower

terrace.� Restore picket fence.� Restore grape arbor.� Restore wisteria trellis.� Implement fire protection program.

Estimated Construction Cost: $55,000.(See Appendices for Development Budgetsand Construction Cost Breakdown.)

Buildings� Repair chimney, roof & north porch, install

gutters & drainage.� Paint exterior of house.

� Construct ADA access to house.� Dismantle, record, and store the Buttery

Building for future reconstruction.� Dismantle existing garage.� Establish interior preservation conserva-

tion criteria.� Install furnace, air-conditioning; upgrade

electrical.� Solicit estimates for interior restoration of

house.� Relocate Caretaker’s Residence.

Estimated Construction Cost: $67,000.(See Appendices for Development Budgetsand Construction Cost Breakdown.)

PARK SITE DEVELOPMENT (CITY):

Park Site� Install security fence around perimeter of

park site.� Grade site and overseed with meadow

grass.� Prepare Wayfinding Plan. Install identifi-

cation and directional signage for projectsite.

� Erect temporary grounds storage building.� Begin water, sewer utilities planning.� Install underground electric utility.� Develop drainage plan for park surface

drainage through historic site.� Begin park site landscape design.� Install security lighting.� Plant perimeter landscape buffer of conifer

trees.� Coordinate street improvements on Sandy

94

Boulevard with Oregon Department ofTransportation.

Estimated Construction Cost: $66,200.(See Appendices for Development Budgetsand Construction Cost Breakdown.)Note: Portions of implementation work canbe completed or coordinated by the Citywith non-traditional resources, e.g. Mult-nomah County Corrections crews, OregonNational Guard.

PHASE 2. 6-10 YEARSFULL TIME OPERATION

Management Activities

a. Museum Staffing:� Director (Full time).� House/Collections Curator (Part time).� Garden Curator (Part time).� Education Coordinator (Part time).� Volunteers Coordinator (Volunteer).� Caretaker (On-site).

b. Professional Development:� Staff/Volunteer continuing education.� Board of Directors training.

c. Fundraising:� Pursue grants.� Sustain membership campaign� Update fundraising plan.

d. Collection Curation:

� Develop Collection Management Plan.� Develop computer database for collection

registration.

e. Plan museum shop.f. Implement Marketing Plan.g. Develop an Education-Interpretation MasterPlan.h. Establish museum accreditation goals,process.i. Establish an Emergency/Disaster Plan.j. Update Facility Master Plan.k. Coordinate with transportation agencies for“brown” heritage freeway identification signson I-84 and directional signage to facility.

Programming Activities

a. Open to public with regular visiting hoursfor historic house and gardens.b. Schedule regular site visits with schoolgroups through the school year.c. Implement garden education programs.d. Sponsor two annual fundraising events;accommodate smaller events in park.e. Provide Parks & Recreation programs.

Site Development Activities

MUSEUM SITE DEVELOPMENT (FOZH):

Site Improvements� Install water to garden; investigate reacti-

vating existing well.

95

� Complete pathways and garden beds inlower front terrace.

� Erect greenhouse.

Estimated Construction Cost: $105,000.(See Appendices for Development Budgetsand Construction Cost Breakdown.)

Historic Structures� Reconstruct Buttery Building and add new

terrace gathering area.� Complete ground floor restoration, exclud-

ing kitchen & bathroom.� Install interior exhibits in house.� Develop external collection storage system.� Create interpretive signage.� Create small sales area for museum shop in

house.� Install monitoring devices for measuring

interior environmental conditions.

Estimated Construction Cost: $61,700.(See Appendices for Development Budgetsand Construction Cost Breakdown.)

PARK SITE DEVELOPMENT (CITY):

Park Site Improvements� Complete sewer and water service.� Develop gravel entry road with site

entrance gate & parking.� Construct visitor arrival plaza and arbor.� Plant perimeter landscape screen/buffer.� Install irrigation system; investigate re-

activating well(s) in park area.

Estimated Construction Cost: $230,900.(See Appendices for Development Budgetsand Construction Cost Breakdown.)

Park Buildings Improvements:� Construct picnic shelter(s).� Install portable restrooms within fenced-

screen enclosure; permanentrestrooms will be built in Phase 3.Estimated Construction Cost: $75,000.(See Appendices for Development Budgetsand Construction Cost Breakdown.)

PHASE 3. 11+ YEARSLONG RANGE OPERATION

Management Activities

a. Staffing:� Museum Director (Full time).� House/Collections Curator (Part time).� Garden Curator (Part time).� Education Coordinator (Part time).� Volunteers Coordinator (Volunteer).� Caretaker (On-site).

b. Continued professional development.

c. Fundraising:� Pursue grants.� Sustain membership campaign� Update fundraising plan.

96

d. Update facility master plan.e. Update interpretation master plan.f. Update collections management plan.g. Prepare house/facility maintenance plan.h. Implement museum accreditation process.i. Join Museum Store Association.j. Achieve and maintain museum accreditation.

Programming Activities

a. Expanded learning opportunities for older stu-dents, internships.b. Host educational day camps on site.c. Provide Parks & Recreation classes.d. Stage quarterly/seasonal events.e. Provide changing exhibits in the Visitor

Center.f. Farm animals reside or are present on-site.

Site Development Activities

MUSEUM SITE DEVELOPMENT (FOZH):

Site Improvements� Reconstruct Wood Shed (Collection

Storage).� Reconstruct Privy.� Reconstruct Bunkhouse (Administrative

Office, Caretaker Quarters).� Reconstruct Horse Barn (Programs,

Agricultural Exhibits).

Estimated Construction Cost: $23,500.(See Appendices for Development Budgets

and Construction Cost Breakdown.)

Historic House Improvements� Complete upstairs restoration.� Restore kitchen and bathroom.� Sustain preventive conservation for house

& collection.

Estimated Construction Cost: $519,500.(See Appendices for Development Budgetsand Construction Cost Breakdown.)

PARK SITE DEVELOPMENT (CITY):

Park Site Improvements� Maintain historic farm landscape.

Estimated Construction Cost: $111,300.(See Appendices for Development Budgetsand Construction Cost Breakdown.)

Park Buildings� Construct Visitor Center� Construct Livestock Loafing Shed.

Estimated Construction Cost: $385,000.(See Appendices for Development Budgetsand Construction Cost Breakdown.)

97

OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT

Attendance Demand Forecast

Investigating comparable facilities pro-vides valuable information regarding atten-dance demand that historic homes typicallyexperience. Demand for Zimmerman HeritageFarm is projected based on the attendancedemand of other historic homes in the regionas well as attendance trends reported byhistoric homes through a national survey.Projected attendance is shown in Table 3.

Table 3Projected Annual Attendance

Demand by Phase

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Years 1-5 Years 6-10 Years 11+

Visitors Percent Visitors Percent Visitors Percent

General Public 350 58% 2,000 14% 4,000 19%Special Events 250 42% 8,000 57% 10,000 47%Organized School Groups 0 0% 4,000 29% 5,000 23%Weddings/meetings 0 0% 0 0% 2,400 11%

Total 600 100% 14,000 100% 21,400 100%

Source: Dean Runyan Associates

During Phase 1, attendance is projected atless than 1,000 visitors per year. Annualattendance is fairly limited due to the neces-sary repair and restoration work on the homeas well as the need to manage the on-sitecollections. School group programs will not beestablished in this phase. Interpretive pro-grams for the general public will be fairlylimited to volunteer support; as a result,general public attendance reflects limiteddemand. An annual 4th of July celebration willprovide an opportunity to attract visitors aswell as potential donors. In 1999, this event

98

attracted approximately 200 visitors to theproject site.

As the Zimmerman Heritage Farm engagesthe activities associated with Phase 2, annualattendance increases to approximately 14,000per year; although, in actual practice thisincrease would occur gradually as the historichome begins “full-time operation”. At thisstage, general public attendance has increasedsubstantially, education programs have becomeestablished and special events serve as aprimary draw for visitors. The focus on specialevents as a primary attraction is typical forother historical homes. For example, BybeeHouse within a short drive of the PortlandMetro market attracts approximately half of itsannual attendance over a single weekend withthe special event “Wintering In”. Otherhistoric homes also find that special eventsserve as a primary attraction, particularly forhistoric homes where weddings, meetings, andeducation programs are not a primary func-tion.

During Phase 2, education programs willalso attract a significant number of visitors.Within the region, Philip Foster Farm andPomeroy Living History Farm both providegood examples of historic farms with estab-lished education programs. For these twohistoric farms, school group attendance rangesfrom 4,000 - 5,000 per-year, which does notinclude attendance from special events. With awell-developed school program supported bydedicated staff volunteers, ZimmermanHeritage Farm would also attract approxi-mately 4,000 school age visitors per year.

As Zimmerman Heritage Farm entersPhase 3, annual attendance is projected at over21,000 visitors. The increase represents contin-ued development of interpretive exhibits,established education programs and activitiesas well as enhanced special events. In addi-tion, the historic grounds will have the facili-ties and appeal to attract small weddings andgroups to the site. Historic Deepwood Estateand Jenkins Estate provide two good examplesof historic homes that have developed a strongdemand for wedding and meeting activities.With the proper facilities and well-managedgrounds, Zimmerman Heritage Farm cancontinue to develop and expand the potentialfor these types of revenue generating activities.

Considering that over half (60%) of historichomes that responded to a nationwide surveyreported an annual visitor level of under 10,000persons per year, these long-term attendanceestimates may seem optimistic1. However,given the proposed programming and sitedevelopment achievements combined with thesite’s proximity within the Portland Metromarket, the projected estimates provide arealistic and achievable target for theZimmerman Heritage Farm.

Operations Plan

This section presents a staffing plan andoperating budget for the Zimmerman HeritageFarm. The staff plan and budget, which isprojected for each of the three phases, ispresented for both Friends of ZimmermanHouse (FOZH) and the City of Gresham. These

99

financial projections indicate the number andtype of staff that will be required, the costs forstaff and other expenses, and the sources ofrevenue for covering these costs.

As reflected in the staff plan and budget,annual expenses for the City of Gresham relatesolely to maintenance of the grounds with theexception of the historic garden. Annualexpenses for FOZH relate to a variety ofresponsibilities including administration,historic garden care, fundraising, and manage-ment of special events.

Preliminary Staffing Plan

For Phase 1 (years 1-5), the staffing projec-tions are modest and call for a half timedirector and limited site management, coordi-nation, and public relations support for FOZH.The City of Gresham will provide staff tosupport basic ground maintenance.

For Phase 2 (years 6-10), FOZH will requirea full-time director and add two part-timecurator positions for the house and garden aswell as a part-time education coordinatorposition. The City of Gresham will provideadditional labor to support the ground mainte-nance standards typically associated withpicnic shelters, which will be present on thesite. Labor costs for this phase and beyondreflect annual cost of living increases

For Phase 3 (years 11+), FOZH will convertthe curators and education coordinator posi-tions to half time. The City of Gresham willcontribute slightly more staff time to thesupport the grounds area associated with the

visitor center/barn. Overall, the entire facilitywill be managed by 3 FTE (full time equiva-lent) positions in “Long Range Operation”.

The staffing plan is based on several assump-tions, as follows:

⇑ Limited administrative staffing, with thedirector responsible for fundraising as wellas operational oversight

⇑ Strong support from volunteers⇑ An educational program that is based on

volunteer interpretive staff who areavailable to interact with classes

⇑ A relatively small membership pool thatrequires only limited management

In terms of annual salary, the total pro-jected cost ranges from approximately $32,000in Phase 1 to $128,000 in Phase 3, as shown inTable 4. These salary estimates are in 1999dollars and do not include fringe benefits.

1 Coats, Peggy. “Survey of Historic House Muse-

ums”. History News. Jan/Feb 1990.

100

Table 4Preliminary Staffing Budget

Position Salary FTE Budget FTE Budget FTE Budget

CITY OF GRESHAMPark Maintenance Supervisor $52,500 0.0 $0 0.1 $5,775 0.1 $6,563Grounds Crew $43,750 0.1 $4,375 0.15 $7,219 0.15 $8,203SUBTOTAL 0.1 $4,375 0.3 $12,994 0.3 $14,766

FOZHDirector $43,750 0.5 $21,875 1.0 $48,125 1.0 $54,688House/Collections Curator $27,500 0.0 $0 0.25 $7,563 0.50 $17,188Garden Curator $25,000 0.0 $0 0.25 $6,875 0.50 $15,628Site Mgt., Coord., and Public Rel. $54,688 0.1 $5,469 0.10 $6,016 0.10 $6,836Education Coordinator $30,000 0.0 $0 0.25 $8,250 0.5 $18,750SUBTOTAL 0.6 $27,344 1.9 $76,829 2.6 $113,090

Total $31,719 $89,823 $127,856

Note: Labor costs in Phase 2 and beyond reflect annual cost of living increases.Source: Dean Runyan Associates

Phase 3Years 11+Year s 1-5

Phase 1 Phase 2Year s 6-10

101

Preliminary Operating Budgets

Preliminary operating budgets are shownfor both FOZH and the City of Gresham inTables 5 and 6. These budgets project annualrevenues and expenses for each of the threedevelopment phases. Annual revenues arebased on projected attendance and on anumber of revenue factors. These assumptionsreflect estimates of admission fees, retail sales,membership revenues, education programs,and special events.

In Phases 2 and 3, revenue from specialevents and meetings is divided evenly betweenFOZH and the City of Gresham to reflect ashared responsibility and contribution. Rev-enue for special events is generated through anominal fee to enter the park as well as sales offood, drinks, and various farm-related craftsand activities. With the help of volunteers,FOZH would manage the sales and specialevent activities.

Expenses relate to the preliminary staffingplan as well as various cost factors that relateto labor benefits, administration, operation andmaintenance costs. These revenue and costfactors are shown in Tables 7 and 8. In theremainder of this section, annual operatingcosts and revenues are discussed as a com-bined total, as well as with regard to particularimpacts for both FOZH and the City ofGresham.

Phase 1 (years 1-5)

During Phase 1, annual operating costs for

the Zimmerman Heritage Farm are projected tobe approximately $39,000, which includesexpenses for both FOZH and the City ofGresham. Revenue sources are limited due tothe necessary restoration and collectionsmanagement activity as well as the timerequired to establish good education programsand special events.

During this initial phase, the City ofGresham would not generate revenue from thesite. For FOZH, revenue sources includedonations, membership dues, City of Greshamsupport (in-kind contributions), and public/private support (source unidentified). Giventhe other projections and goals of the proposedmaster plan, annual public/private support ofapproximately $22,000 per year is required tobalance the budget through this initial devel-opment phase. The director of FOZH will beresponsible for raising these necessary funds.

Phase 2 (years 6-10)

During Phase 2, combined operating costswould increase to approximately $123,000 peryear, as the “full-time operation” gets under-way. The largest portion of these additionalcosts is associated with new paid staff posi-tions for FOZH as well as the additionalmaintenance and landscape requirementsnecessary for the City of Gresham to manage amore developed site, which includes picnicshelters.

The remaining expenses relate to thepurchases of goods as part of the retail opera-tions and special events and expenses for

102

overall operations such as utilities, supplies,and equipment.

During this phase, the City of Greshamwill begin to generate revenue from picnicreservations, special events, communityprograms and meeting space reservations. ForFOZH, a variety of new revenue sourcesinclude admission fees, special events, retailsales, and education programs related to thehouse museum programs.

Public/private support of approximately$45,000 per year will be necessary for FOZH tofund the programming and site developmentactivities associated with this phase. As FOZHbegins Phase 2, the full time director is ex-pected to have established some consistentfunding sources; however, fundraising willcontinue to remain a priority throughout thisphase and beyond.

Phase 3 (years 11+)

During Phase 3, combined operating costswould increase slightly to $174,000 per year, asFOZH continues to expand interpretive andprogramming activities. The additional costsare primarily associated with additional paidstaff time for the curator and education coordi-nator positions. For the City of Gresham,grounds management costs for the City ofGresham would remain consistent with therequirements of the previous phase; however,revenue would increase as well establishedspecial events, community programs, andmeeting space facilities attract more local andregional demand.

Through this “long-range operation” phaseof development, City of Gresham revenuewould exceed the costs associated with groundmaintenance and generate net revenue. ForFOZH, revenue from general admission, retailsales, education programs, and special eventswould likewise increase as these programsbecome more established within the commu-nity.

At this stage, the site and home would alsoappeal and be available for small weddingparties, an additional source of revenue. Aswith the previous development phase, FOZHwill need to continue to raise a similar level offunds from public and private sources tosustain the proposed level of programmingand site development activity.

103

Table 5City Of Gresham

Maintenance and OperatingBudget

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

CITY OF GRESHAM Years 1-5 Years 6-10 Years 11+

RevenuePicnic Reservations $0 $10,000 $12,000Special Events $0 $8,000 $15,000Community Programs $0 $2,000 $5,000Meeting Space Reservations $0 $2,500 $8,750TOTAL $0 $22,500 $40,750

ExpensesLabor (includes overhead/benefits) $4,375 $12,994 $14,766Operating expenses $2,391 $18,066 $20,530TOTAL $6,766 $31,060 $35,296

Net Revenue -$6,766 -$8,560 $5,454

Cost and revenues in Phase 2 and beyond relfect annual cost of living increases.Source: Dean Runyan Associates

Note: Expenses include labor and operating costs for mowing, weed spraying, and portable restroom service

104

Table 6Friends Of Zimmerman HouseMaintenance and OperatingBudget

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3FOZH Years 1-5 Years 6-10 Years 11+

RevenueGeneral Admission $693 $4,860 $11,520Retail Sales $700 $6,000 $16,000Education Programs $0 $16,000 $25,000Special Events $500 $8,000 $15,000Public/Private Support (includes donation $22,000 $45,000 $46,000Weddings $0 $0 $6,375City of Gresham Support (in-kind services) $5,469 $6,016 $6,836Membership Dues $3,000 $6,250 $12,250TOTAL $32,362 $92,126 $138,981

ExpensesLabor (includes overhead/benefits) $27,344 $76,828 $113,086Admin. & office expenses $1,230 $3,457 $5,089Operating expenses $2,461 $6,915 $10,178Retail sales & special events purchases $385 $3,300 $8,800Maintenance and Supplies $410 $1,152 $1,696TOTAL $31,830 $91,652 $138,849

Net Revenue $532 $474 $132

Source: Dean Runyan Associates

Note: City of Gresham support represents the annual value of labor services for volunteer coordination, evecoordination, general site management, public relations. Cost and revenues in Phase 2 and beyond reflect annual cost of living increases. Figures are rounded to the nearest dollar.

105

Table 7Projected Revenue Factors

By PhasePhase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Years 1-5 Years 6-10 Years 11+

General AdmissionsProportion Paid Admissions 90% 90% 90%Proportion Adult Admissions 80% 80% 80%Admission Fees Adult $2.50 $3.00 $4.00 Youth $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 Average Fee $2.20 $2.70 $3.20Retail SalesRetail Sales/Admission $2.00 $3.00 $4.00MembershipNumber Members 200 250 350Avg. Membership Fee $15 $25 $35Education ProgramsAverage Fee $3.50 $4.00 $5.00Shelter RentalNumber of Sessions 0 200 200Rental Fee $30 $50 $60Special EventsAvg. Revenue/Person $2.00 $2.00 $3.00Meeting SpaceNumber of events 0 10 25Rental fee $150 $250 $350WeddingsNumber of events 0 0 15Rental fee $395 $395 $425

Source: Dean Runyan Associates

106

Table 8Projected Cost Factorsby Phase

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3Cost Factors Years 1-5 Years 6-10 Years 11+

Labor Benefits Cost 25% 25% 25%Cost of Sales 55% 55% 55%Percent Cost Labor 85% 85% 85%Opr/Adm Cost Allocation Office/Administration 30% 30% 30% Operating 60% 60% 60% Equipment/Maintenance 10% 10% 10%

Source: Dean Runyan Associates

A P P E N D I C E S

107

Abbott, Carl1985 Portland Gateway to the Northwest. Windsor Publications, Inc., Northridge, California.

Alderson, William T. & Low, Shirley Payne1996 Interpretation of Historic Sites, 2nd Edition. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California.

Beeton, Isabella1861 The Book of Household Management. S.O. Beeton, London, England.

Brown, William A.1978 The Willamette Valley. Migration and Settlement on the Oregon Frontier. University ofWashington Press, Seattle

Carey, Charles H.1971 General History of Oregon. Binfords and Mort Publishing, Portland, Oregon.

Chapman, Publishing1903 Portrait and Biographical Record of Portland and Vicinity, Oregon. Chicago.

Clark, Robert Carlton1927 History of the Willamette Valley Oregon, Vol. 1. The S. J. Clarke Publishing Company,Chicago.

City of GreshamUndated. Oregon Inventory of Historic Properties. Gresham, Oregon.

Dortignacq & Associates1997 “Zimmerman House Restoration and Rehabilitation, PreDesign/Design Phases Report”.

Duncan, Mary Ann and David W. Harvey1978 Cultural Resource Investigation, Vancouver Lake, Washington. U.S. Army Corps. Of Engi-neers. Portland, Oregon.

Evans, John W.1991 Powerful Rockey The Blue Mountains and the Oregon Trail. Eastern Oregon State College,LaGrande, Oregon.

APPENDIX A

ZIMMERMAN HERITAGE FARMMASTER PLAN BIBLIOGRAPHY

108

Eckles, C. H.1915 Dairy Cattle and Milk Production. McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., New York.

1943 Milk and Milk Products. The MacMillan Company, New York.

Florin, LambertVictorian West, First Edition. Superior Publishing Company, Seattle, Washington.

Gaston, Joseph1911 Portland It’s History and Builders Vol. 1. The S.J. Clarke Publish Co.

Gibson, James1985 Farming The Frontier The Agricultural Opening of the Oregon Country. University ofWashington Press, Seattle.

Halsted, Byron D., Editor1977 Barns, Sheds and Outbuildings. The Stephen Greene Press, Brattleboro, Vermont.

Johnson, Dorothy and Charles M. Gates1957 Empire of the Columbia A History of the Pacific Northwest. Harper & Brothers Publishing,New York.

Jones, Ray Franklin1971 Wappato Indian of the Lower Columbia River Valley. Vancouver, Washington.

Kane, Paul1925 Wanderings of an Artist Among The Indians of North America. The Radisson Society ofCanada, Toronto.

Kongas, Lembi1979 The Blue Lake Survey region: A Cultural Resources Approach. Portland, Oregon.

Lang, B.H.O., Editor1885 History of the Willamette Valley. Description of the Valley ant its resources with an accountof its discovery and settlement by Whitemen and its Subsequent History. Personal Reminiscesof its Early Pioneers. George H. Himes, Book and Job Printer, Portland.

109

Monagan, Jay1947 The Overland Trail. The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Indianapolis.

Moore, Merton and Gildow, E. M., D.V.M.1953 Developing a Profitable Dairy Herd. Windsor Press.

Multnomah County1980 Planning Commission Resolution PC 12-80E/2. Portland, Oregon.

Norman, James B. Jr.1991 Portland’s Architecture Heritage. National Register Properties of the Portland MetropolitanArea. Oregon Historical Society Press.

Poppeliers, John C., et. al.1983 What Style Is It? A Guide to American Architecture. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,New York.

Quaife, Milo Milton (editor)1923 Alexander Ross Adventures of the First Settlers on the Oregon or Columbia River. The lakesidePress,

Robinson, Nugent (compiled by)1882 Collier’s Cyclopedia of Commercial and Social Information. Collier Publisher, NY.

Ruby, Robert H., John A. Brown1976 The Chinook Indians Traders of the Lower Columbia River. University of Oklahoma Press,Norman, Oklahoma.

Ruby, Robert H., John A. Brown1981 Indians of the Pacific Northwest. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

Rath, Sara1988 The Complete Cow. Voyageur Press, Inc., Stillwater, Minnesota.

Schroeder, Fred E. H.1986 “Interpreting and Reinterpreting Associative Historic Sites and Artifacts, Technical

110

Report No. 6”. American Association for State and Local History

Snyder, Eugene1970 Early Portland Stump-town Triumphant. Binford & Mort. Portland Oregon.

Stone, William1970 A History of Fairview. Multnomah County, Oregon.

Strasser, Susan1981 Never Done A History of American Housework. Pantheon Books New York.

Thwaites, Reuben Gold, Editor1969 Original Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Arno Press reprint, New York.

Troop, Vincent M.1948 The Suburban Zone of Metropolitan Portland, Oregon. A Dissertation Submitted to the Facultyof the Division of Physical Sciences in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. University ofChicago, Chicago, Illinois.

Vaughan, Thomas, Editor; Virginia Guest Ferriday, Associate Editor1974 Space, Style and Structure Building in Northwest America. Oregon Historical Society.Portland, Oregon.

Yapp, W. W. and Nevens, W. B.1926 Dairy Cattle-Selection, Feeding, and Management. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

111

Symphoricarpos mallisSnowberry

Thuja plicataWestern Red Cedar

Typha latifoliaCattail

Vaccinum ovatumHuckleberry

ZIMMERMAN HERITAGE FARMSelected Native Plants in the Project Areaat the time of Lewis and Clark Expedition

Abies proceraNoble Fir

Acer macrophyllumBig Leaf Maple

Alnus rubraRed Alder

Berberis sp.Oregon Grape

Camassia quamashCamas

Corylus californicaHazelnut

Fragaria sp.Wild Strawberry

Gaultheria shallonSalal

Lysichitum americanumSkunk Cabbage

Oenanthe sarmentosaWater Parsley

Pinus monticolaWestern White Pine

Populus trichocarpaBlack Cottonwood

Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas Fir

Quercus garryanaAcorns

Rubus macropetalusBlackberry

Rubus spectbelisSalmonberry

Rubus ursinusTrailing Blackberry

Sagittaria latifoliaWappato

APPENDIX B

113

P. Juglans regiaPersian Walnut

Q. Kerria japonica ‘Double’Double Japanese Kerria

R. Lonicera japonica hallianaHalls Japanese Honeysuckle

S. Magnolia soulangeanaSaucer Magnolia

T. Malus pumila var. 1.Apple

U. Malus pumila var. 2.Apple

V. Malus pumila var. 3.Apple

W. Oemleria cerasiformisOsoberry

X. Parthenocissus quinquefoliaVirginia Creeper

Y. Prunus var. 1.Z. Prunus var. 2.AA. Prunus laurocerasus

Common LaurelcherryBB. Quercus garryana

Oregon White OakCC. Rhododendron var. 1. (red)

RhododendronDD. Rhododendron var 2 (white)

RhododendronEE. Azalea mollis

Chinese AzaleaFF. Rhododendron var. 3. (red)

RhododendronGG. Rosa var. 1. (pink)

RoseHH. Rosa var. 2. (pink)

Rose

APPENDIX C

ZIMMERMAN HERITAGE FARMWOODY PLANTS INVENTORY

Plant Material Mapped on Drawing at end ofAppendix C.27 July 1999

A. Acer palmatum ‘Threadleaf’Threadleaf Japanese Maple

B. Acer palmatumJapanese Maple

C. Aucuba japonicaJapanese Aucuba

D. Buxus sempervirensCommon Box

E. Calocedrus decurrensCalifornia Incensecedar

F. Camellia japonicaCommon Camellia

G. Chaenomeles lagenariaCommon Flowering quince

H. Cotoneaster franchetiFranchet Cotoneaster

I. Crataegus var.1

HawthornJ. Ficus carica

Common FigK. Forsythia var.

ForsythiaL. Forsythia suspensa

Weeping ForsythiaM., Hydrangea macrophylla (pink)

Bigleaf HydrangeaN. Hydrangea macrophylla

Bigleaf HydrangeaO. Ilex aquifolium

English Holly

114

II. Rosa var. 3. (red)Rose

JJ. Rosa multiflora 4.Japanese Rose

KK. Rosa borboniana 5.Bourbon Rose

LL. Rosa var. 6. (pink)Rose

MM. Rosa var. 7. (pink) (Dorothy Perkins)Rose

NN> Rosa var. 8. red)Rose

OO. Rosa rugosa 9.Rugosa Rose

PP. Rosa var. 10. (seedlings)Rose

QQ. Rosa var. 11. (yellow)Rose

RR. Salix discolorPussy Willow

SS. Spiraea douglasiDouglas Spirea

TT. Spiraea thunbergiThunberg Spirea

UU. Spiraea vanhoutteiVanhoutte Spirea

VV. Symphoricarpos albusCommon Snowberry

WW. Syringa vulgarisCommon Lilac

XX. Viburnum opulus roseum ‘CommonSnowball’

Common Snowball EuropeanCranberrybush

YY. Viburnum tinusLaurestines viburnum

ZZ. Vitis viniferaEuropean Grape

AAA. Wistaria sinensisChinese Wistaria

BBB. Clematic paniculataSweetautumn Clematis

CCC. Corylus avellanaEuropean Filbert

DDD. Pseudotsuga menziesiCommon Douglasfir

EEE. Cornus alba sibiricaSiberian Dogwood

FFF. Ligustrum vulgare (shrub)European Privet

GGG. Pleioblastus argenteo-striatusSasa

HHH. Lugustrum vulgareEuropean Privet

III. Ligustrum vulgare ‘Golden’Golden European Privet

JJJ. Pyrus var.Pear

KKK. Rosa var. 12. (pink)Rose

115

ZIMMERMAN HERITAGE FARMHISTORIC PLANTING INVENTORY

117

19. Hesperis matronalisDames Rocket

20. Hydrophyllum var.Waterleaf

21. Hypericum calycinumAaronsbeard St.Johnswort

22. Iris cristataCrested Iris

23. Iris germanica (lt. yellow)German Iris

24. Iris germanica var.German Iris

25. Iris sibiricaSiberian Iris

26. Iris var. (lt. blue)Iris

27. Linaria var.Toadflax

28. Lunaria annuaDollarplant

29. Lychnis coronariaRose Campion

30. Melissa officinalisCommon Balm

31. Mentha piperitaPeppermint

32. Mentha sauveolensApplemint

33. Muscari botryoidesCommon Grapehyacinth

34. Narcissus pseudonarcissusCommon Daffodil

35. Narcissus pseudonarcissus bicolor‘Double’Double Bicolor CommonDaffodil

APPENDIX D

ZIMMERMAN HERITAGE FARMHERBACEOUS PLANTS INVENTORY

1. Aegopodium lpodograriaBishops Goutweed

2. Aegopodium podograria variegatumSilveredge Bishops Goutweed

3. Allium scorodoprasmGiant Garlic

4 Allium schoenoprasmChive

5. Aquilegia vulgaris var. (blue)European Columbine

6. Aquilegia vulgaris var. (double white)European Columbine

7. Arabis var. (white)Rockcress

8 Armoracia lapathifoliaHorseradish

9. Bergenia cordifoliaHeartleaf Bergenia

10. Caltha palustrisCommon Marshmarigold

11. Dracunculus vulgarisCommon Stinkdragon

12. Dicentra formosaPacific Bleedingheart

13. Foeniculum vulgareCommon Fennel

14. Galanthus nivalisCommon Snowdrop

15. .Glecoma hederaceaGround Ivy

16. Hedera helixEnglish Ivy

17. Hedera helix ‘Needlepoint’Needlepoint English Ivy

18. Hemerocallis var.Daylilly

118

36. Narcisus jonquilaJonquil

37. Narcissus pseudonarcissus bicolorBicolor Common Daffodil

38. Narcissus pseudonarcissus(white/white)Common Daffodil

39. Origanum vulgareCommon Origanum

40. Paeonia lactiflora (‘Madelon’?)Chinese Peony

41. Paeonia lactiflora (‘Ballerina’?)Chinese Peony

42. Paeonia lactiflora (‘Festiva Maxima’?)43. Phalaris arundinacea

Reed Canarygrass44. Polygonatum odoratum

Solomonseal45. Polystichum munitum

Western Swordfern46. Ranunculus occidentalis

Western Buttercup47. Ranunculus repens

Creeping Buttercup48 Smilacina stellata

Starry False Solomonseal49. Symphytum caucasicum

Caucasian Comfrey50. Tellima breviflora

Fringecup51. Trillium ovatum

Pacific Trillium52 Tulipa var. (yellow)

Tulip53. Tulipa var. (yellow/red stripe)

Tulip

54. Urtica dioicaBigsting Nettle

55. Vinca majorBigleaf Periwinkle

56. Vinca minor ‘Bowles’Bowles Periwinkle

57. Vinca minor ‘White’White Periwinkle

58. Scilla hispanica albaWhite Spanish Squill

59. Scilla hispanica ‘Blue Queen’Blue Queen Spanish Squill

1 Exact species not identified; flower and/or fruit not

observed. Annotate document when identification is made.

119

APPENDIX E

ZIMMERMAN HERITAGE FARMDEVELOPMENT COSTSMUSEUM SITE

A. Museum Site Improvements 55,000B. Historic House Improvements 67,000C. Sub Total 122,000D. Design & Estimating Contingency (15% of Line C) 18,300E. Sub Total Costs 140,300F. Contractor's Mark-Up (13% of Lines E) 18,239G. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 158,539H. Design Consultants (12% of Line G) 19,025I. Client Administrative Cost (1% of Line G) 1585

TOTAL PROJECT COST 179,149$

PARK SITE

A. Park Site Improvements 66,200B. Park Buildings 0C. Sub Total 66,200D. Design & Estimating Contingency (15% of Line C) 9,930E. Sub Total Costs 76,130F. Contractor's Mark-Up (13% of Lines E) 9,897G. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 86,027H. Design Consultants (12% of Line G) 10,323I. Client Administrative Cost (1% of Line G) 860

TOTAL PROJECT COST 97,210$

Source: Slusarenko Architecture, PC/Atlas Landscape ArchitectureNote: See Appendix for Cost Estimates

Phase 1. Project Development Cost (1999 dollars)

120

MUSEUM SITE

A. Museum Site Improvements 105,000B. Historic House Improvements 61,700C. Sub Total 166,700D. Design & Estimating Contingency (15% of Line C) 25,005E. Sub Total Costs 191,705F. Contractor's Mark-Up (13% of Lines E) 24,922G. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 216,627H. Design Consultants (12% of Line G) 25,995I. Client Administrative Cost (1% of Line G) 2166

TOTAL PROJECT COST 244,788$

PARK SITE

A. Park Site Improvements 230,900B. Park Buildings 75,000C. Sub Total 305,900D. Design & Estimating Contingency (15% of Line C) 45,885E. Sub Total Costs 351,785F. Contractor's Mark-Up (13% of Lines E) 45,732G. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 397,517H. Design Consultants (12% of Line G) 47,702I. Client Administrative Cost (1% of Line G) 3975

TOTAL PROJECT COST 449,194$

Source: Slusarenko Architecture, PC/Atlas Landscape ArchitectureNote: See Appendix for Cost Estimates

Phase 2. Project Development Cost (1999 dollars)

121

MUSEUM SITE

A. Museum Site Improvements 23,500B. Museum Buildings Improvements 519,500C. Sub Total 543,000D. Design & Estimating Contingency (15% of Line C) 81,450E. Sub Total Costs 624,450F. Contractor's Mark-Up (13% of Lines E) 81,179G. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 705,629H. Design Consultants (12% of Line G) 84,675I. Client Administrative Cost (1% of Line G) 7056

TOTAL PROJECT COST 797,360$

PARK SITE

A. Park Site Improvements 111,300B. Park Buildings 385,000C. Sub Total 496,300D. Design & Estimating Contingency (15% of Line C) 74,445E. Sub Total Costs 570,745F. Contractor's Mark-Up (13% of Lines E) 74,197G. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 644,942H. Design Consultants (12% of Line G) 77,393I. Client Administrative Cost (1% of Line G) 6449

TOTAL PROJECT COST 728,784$

Source: Slusarenko Architecture, PC/Atlas Landscape ArchitectureNote: See Appendix for Cost Estimates

Phase 3. Project Development Cost (1999 dollars)

123

APPENDIX F

ZIMMERMAN HERITAGE FARMCOST ESTIMATES

PHASE 1. 1-5 YEARSMUSEUM SITE DEVELOPMENT (FOZH)1 Historic Site Improvements

a. Gates $6,300b. Site drainage $7,200c. Soil preparation - garden $14,900d. Seeding $5,100e. Picket fence $5,500f. Grape arbor $15,000g. Wisteria trellis $1,000

Subtotal Historic Site $55,0002 Historic House Museum Improvements

a. Roof & north porch repair $25,000b. Exterior painting $20,000c. HVAC installation $12,000d. Electrical upgrade $10,000

Subtotal Historic House Museum $67,000TOTAL PHASE 1 MUSEUM SITE DEVELOPMENT $122,000

PARK SITE DEVELOPMENT (City)1 Park Site Improvements

a. Perimeter fence $16,700b. Gates $1,600c. Clear site $15,700d. Strip site $4,700e. Grade site $4,000f. Seeding $13,500g. Signage & wayfinding $10,000

Subtotal Park Site Improvements $66,2002 Park Buildings

None $0Subtotal $0TOTAL PHASE 1 PARK SITE DEVELOPMENT $66,200

124

PHASE 2. 6 - 10 YEARSMUSEUM SITE DEVELOPMENT (FOZH)1 Historic Site Improvements

a. Buttery terrace $3,400b. North perimeter fence $3,800c. Irrigation & well $56,300d. Greenhouse (10'x20') $8,000e. Driveway (gravel) $2,800f. Board fence (east & west) $8,200g. Accessible ramp $22,500

Subtotal $105,0002 Historic Buildings Improvements

a. House ground floor restoration $15,000b. Buttery reconstruction $31,500c. Privy reconstruction $200d. External collection storage unit $10,000e. Interpretive signage $5,000

Subtotal $61,700TOTAL PHASE 2 MUSEUM SITE DEVELOPMENT $166,700

PARK SITE DEVELOPMENT(City)1 Park Site Improvements

a. Sewer, water & utilities $25,000b. Entry road & parking (gravel) $90,000c. Irrigation system $15,600d. Perimeter landscape buffer $10,000e. Visitor plaza & terrace $35,000f. Visitor Center area arbor $45,000g. Corral fence $5,300h. Portable restrooms enclosure $5,000

Subtotal $230,9002 Park Buildings

a. Picnic shelter $75,000Subtotal $75,000TOTAL PHASE 2 PARK SITE DEVELOPMENT $305,900

125

PHASE 3. 11+ YEARSMUSEUM SITE DEVELOPMENT (FOZH)1 Historic Site Improvements

a. Concrete stairs $400b. Service road (gravel) $13,800c. Security lights $2,000d. Restore concrete sidewalk $3,800e. Security system (motion) $3,500

Subtotal $23,5002 Historic House Museum Improvements

a. House second floor restoration $15,000b. House kitchen restoration $12,000c. House bathroom renovation $2,500d. Wood Shed reconstruction $120,000e. Bunkhouse reconstruction $130,000f. Horse Barn Reconstruction $240,000

Subtotal $519,500TOTAL PHASE 3 MUSEUM SITE DEVELOPMENT $543,000

PARK SITE DEVELOPMENT (City)1 Park Site Improvements

a. Asphalt path $6,000b. Restore pear orchard $3,200c. Tree planting $15,000d. Picnic pads $14,400e. Group picnic area $10,000f. Lighting $25,000g. Concrete curbs $7,900h. Road/parking drainage $13,000I. Asphalt road $16,800

Subtotal $111,3002 Park Buildings

a. Visitor Center $330,000b. Livestock Shed $55,000

Subtotal $385,000TOTAL PHASE 3 PARK SITE DEVELOPMENT $496,300

127

APPENDIX G

MASTER PLANNING PUBLIC PROCESS

SUMMARY

July FOZH Meeting - Review of Master Plan Scope of Work for RFP. October 6, 1998 - City Council Meeting – Contract Award to Consultant Team. October 21, 1998 - Project Kick off Meeting w/ Staff, Friends of Zimmerman House

(FOZH), Fairview-Rockwood-Wilkes Historic Society (FRW) members, and Consultant Team.

November 2, 1998 - Business Leaders Focus Group Meeting. November 14, 1998 - Technical Advisory Committee Meeting # 1 - Concept Workshop w/

Staff, FOZH & FRW. January 20, 1999 - Update to Parks & Recreation Citizen Advisory Committee (PRCAC). January 22, 1999 - Technical Advisory Committee Meeting # 2 - Programming Concept

Review. March 31, 1999 - PRCAC Meeting w/ Historic Resources Advisory Committee (HRAC)

for Vision and Site Concept Approval. April 9, 1999 - Technical Advisory Committee Meeting # 3 – Operational Concept

Review. April 13, 1999 - Public Open House at City Hall. May 4, 1999 - City Council Presentation – Update. June 16, 1999 - FOZH/Staff Work Session – Refine program, operation and

management concept. June 22, 1999 - Work Session w/Consultant Team, Staff & FOZH – Review and

refinement of program and management concept. July 3, 1999 - Public Open House Celebration at Zimmerman Farm. July 16, 1999 - Technical Advisory Committee Meeting # 4 – Implementation Plan

Review w/ FOZH, FRW, Staff and Consultant Team. August 18, 1999 - PRCAC Meeting - Review Implementation Plan. September 1, 1999 - HRAC Meeting - Review Implementation Plan. November 1, 1999 - FRW Meeting – Review Final Draft Plan. November 17, 1999 - PRCAC/HRAC – Review Final Draft Plan. December 7, 1999 - City Council Meeting – Review and Adopt Final Master Plan.

129

All photographs except those noted below are from the Zimmerman Photographic Collection, courtesyof Fairview-Rockwood-Wilkes Historical Society/Friends of Zimmerman House.

Pages16, 19: Oregon Hisorical Society Collection.

Page 17: Independence National Historical Park, Philadelphia.

Page 18: Dodd, Mead, and Company.

Page 22, 80 right: Dirk van Lom.

Page 28, top: Slusarenko Architecture, PC

Pages 44, bottom; 70: Lambert Florin Collection.

Page 79, right: Yapp and Nevens.

Page 83, right: Paul Rocheleau.

APPENDIX H

MASTER PLANPHOTOGRAPHY SOURCES

Z I M M E R M A N H E R I T A G E F A R M

17111 NE SANDY BOULEVARD

G R E S H A M , O R E G O N