HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-01-14 Planning MIN
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
January 14, 2020
I. CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main
Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Troy Brown, Jr. Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Alan Harper Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Haywood Norton
Roger Pearce
Lynn Thompson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Stefani Seffinger, absent
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Planning Manager Maria Harris announced the annual planning commission training by the American Planning
Association would be April 29, 2020. Senior Planner Derek Severson announced the annexation of PA-T3-2019-00001,
1511 Highway 99 was continued to Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. The proposed site visit to the 476 North
Laurel Street cottage housing development in lieu of a Study Session January 28, 2020, was postponed.
III. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES
Commissioner Dawkins noted the Revitalize Downtown Ashland Committee had met recently.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of Minutes
1.December 10, 2019 Regular Meeting
Commissioner Brown/Thompson m/s to approve the minutes of December 10, 2019. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
V. PUBLIC FORUM
Huelz Gutcheon/Ashland/Would email the Commission a list of the best EV charging sites. He spoke on the amps
required for charging an electric vehicle. He went on to speak about rooftop solar panel systems.
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2019-00015, 459 Russell Street.
The Commission had no ex parte contacts on the matter. One edit moved the last sentence regarding easements in
Section 3. DECISION 8(i) to Section 10 i).
Commissioner Harper/Brown m/s to approve the Findings for PA-T2-2019-00015, 459 Russell Street as
amended. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 14, 2020
Page 1 of 6
VII. TYPE I PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 appealing PA-T1-2019-00080
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 145 North Main Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: BC Partners IV, LLC/Donn Comte
APPELLANT: Donn Comte
DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will consider an appeal by the applicant of the Staff
Advisor’s approval of a request for Site Design Review approval for proposed exterior changes
including new doors, windows and siding to a contributing property within a Historic District for
the property located at 145 North Main Street. The subject property is located in the Skidmore
Academy Historic District, and is designated the “Ashland Tire Shop” building – more recently
“Hank’s Foreign Automotive” - a historic contributing resource within the district. No changes
are proposed to the site development, layout, orientation or use. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Low-Density, Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR’S MAP #:
391E09BB; TAX LOT: 3503.
Chair Pearce read the rules of the Public Hearing for both hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioner Thompson, Norton, Brown, Harper and Pearce declared no ex parte contact and no site visits.
Commissioner Dawkins had no ex parte contact but knew the site well.
Staff Report
Senior Planner Derek Severson submitted two exhibits into the record (see attached). He provided a
presentation (see attached):
Vicinity Map Historic Commission Recommendations
Gas station in 1936 Historic Commission background and
credentials
1979 CUP Site Landscaping Plan
Staff Decision
Historic District Inventory Listing
Appeal Issues #1, 2 and 3
Photos of the site
American Plywood Association (APA)
Original Request
Historic Commission Recommendations
The Appeal issues included:
1.The Historic Commission did not effectively review the plans nor the evidence submitted
which illustrated that the original siding is a combination of vertical metal siding and vertical
T1-11 siding.
Staff referred to the Rehabilitation Standard regarding siding in AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.d. The applicant
provided additional materials after the Historic Commission’s review. It did not include an extension of the
120-day clock for further review by the Historic Commission. The building was re-sided in 1980. Staff
concluded the T1-11 was not the original siding used in 1936. The applicant should utilize 1 x 8 tongue and
groove siding or stucco as an alternative with a modification that staff provide another compatible horizontal
siding treatment.
2.The Historic Commission also improperly applied residential standards to a building which
is commercial.
The Historic Commission’s recommendations and the Staff Advisor’s decision were based on AMC
18.4.2.050.C and AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2. The property was in the Skidmore Academy Historic District and
noted in the National Register of Historic Places. It was residentially zoned with a conditional use permit for
commercial use.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 14, 2020
Page 2 of 6
3.Lastly, the gable detail does not denote what is the actual historical siding for the building
being vertical T1-11 and the vertical metal siding.
The Historic Commission recommended the gable ends of the original part of the building include 1 x 8 tongue
and groove siding. The T1-11 siding was not the original siding. It was used in the 1979-1980 remodel.
Historic District Development standards prohibited vertical siding unless it was the original siding used.
Staff recommended the appeal be denied and the original staff approval be upheld with conditions.
Questions of Staff - None
Appellant’s Presentation
Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning & Development Services/Submitted an exhibit into the record (see attached). She
provided a presentation (see attached):
Photos of 145 North Main Street Photos of the subject property
Zoning Information Phone call from Hank Singmaster confirming
original siding was metal.
Applicant’s Current Objectives for Subject Property
Historic Evidence of Original Vertical Metal Siding
Building Areas Needing Repair
Historic Evidence of Original T1-11 Siding
Site Plan Submittals
Recommendations of this Historic Commission
Permits Issued by City for repairs per Engineering
Signed by Department of Community Development
Report
Director
Confirmation that repairs have been completed per
Recommendations of Historic Commission
Engineer’s Report
Applicant Wishes to Conform to Guidelines by
Applicant’s Material Submitted to the City and
Using a Compatible Vertical Siding
Historic Commission
Approved Renovation at 96 N. Main “Brothers”
Compatible New Siding illustration
Approved Vertical Siding.
Statement explaining the specific issues being
Applicant’s Preferred Replacement Siding Finish
raised on appeal
Applicant Statement
Historic District Development Standards
Example of Period Garage Doors
Rehabilitation Standards Existing Buildings and
Additions
Ashland Historic Preservation Plan
Ms. Gunter thought the conditions of approval requested imitation materials by requiring horizontal siding or suggesting
stucco. She addressed the following Historic Commission recommendations in the Findings from December 19, 2019:
a.The applicant shall restore or duplicate the entablature (horizontal architectural details under the eave line
of the roof), including the enclosed soffit, along the entire North Main Street façade of the building and
along the original office structure (i.e. brick entry feature) on the Bush Street façade. (Rehabilitation
Standard AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.b. & c. See Photos 1 and 2 above).
The applicant agreed to the entablature details at the original office brick entry feature. They disagreed with the North
Main Street façade having an enclosed soffit. It was added in 1980 to support the gutter system. They also disagreed
to the siding recommendations.
b.Smooth 1 x 8 tongue and groove siding, or another compatible horizontal siding to be reviewed by the
Review Board and approved by the Staff Advisor, shall be used in place of the exiting T1-11 siding on all
sides of the building. The gable ends of the building include tongue and groove siding which the Historic
Commission determined to be indicative of the original external building materials. In lieu of horizontal
siding, stucco would also be an acceptable alternative, as it was a common exterior building material for
commercial buildings and gas stations during the period of significance. (Rehabilitation Standard AMC
Ashland Planning Commission
January 14, 2020
Page 3 of 6
18.4.2.050.C.2.d.)
The applicant disagreed with the recommendations for siding and wanted to use T1-11 or Board and Batten in a vertical
orientation.
c.That the exterior building colors shall be similar to the existing exterior colors including white and gray,
along with the brick on the original office structure, as proposed by the applicant (Rehabilitation Standard
AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.e.)
The applicant agreed to use black, white, grey and red brick colors used on the original office structure.
d.The windows on the original office structure (i.e., the brick entry feature) shall be true divided lights (i.e.
with the glass divided into small panes) on the North Main Street and Bush Street facades to match the
original windows. (Rehabilitation Standard AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.g. See Bush Street side of the building in
Photo 2, above).
The applicant agreed to match the windows on the original office.
e.The applicant shall submit architectural drawings as specified in AMC 18.5.2.040.4.d (e.g. section drawings
and drawings of architectural details) with the building permit submittals. The Historic Commission
strongly recommended that the Historic Review Board be allowed to review and comment on these
architectural drawings prior to submittal of a building permit application.
The applicant disagreed. The application was not a proposed development and they had already submitted
architectural drawings.
f.Historically compatible garage doors shall be utilized, and a sample profile shall be provided with the
building permit application.
The applicant disagreed. It was not applicable. The Historic Commission was applying residential standards to a
commercial property. A permit should not be required to replace damaged garage doors on a commercial building.
Questions of the Appellant
Commissioner Thompson addressed statements from the applicant that indicated the vertical metal siding
was original on the exterior. Ms. Gunter explained the October 16, 2019 Findings spoke to metal siding. The
back of the building was metal. The majority was covered with corrugated metal in a vertical seam pattern.
The Historic Commission was not aware the back of the building was metal siding and had not seen the
photos.
Commissioner Dawkins asked why using vertical or horizontal siding was an issue. Ms. Gunter responded it
was a precedence issue. The Historic Commission required something that just a block away in the Historic
District, was approved. It was principal and there were financial implications.
Ms. Gunter clarified Mr. Singmaster inherited the subject property from his father who was the original owner.
Public Testimony - None
Rebuttal by Appellant - None
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioner Brown thought the metal siding appeared to be vertical although it was difficult to confirm in
the photos. Commissioner Thompson agreed and added the Historic Commission had not been informed the
back part of the building was metal.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 14, 2020
Page 4 of 6
The Commission discussed using T1-11 vertical plywood and the gable. Ms. Harris clarified the gable end of
the corner element was the original structure. Commission comment noted the applicant had the burden to
show the original siding was vertical and they could not. A statement from the 1979 project had approved
using vertical siding and possibly indicated vertical siding was not on the original building.
Commissioner Harper/Norton m/s to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Historic
Commission. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Harper thought the burden was on the applicant to show that
the original siding from 1936 was vertical. Commissioner Brown agreed. Commissioner Thompson explained
the original building from 1936 was the front office and what was behind it. The bay was added in 1979. She
thought there was some evidence in the back area of metal siding that was vertical. It might meet the standard.
Chair Pearce and Commissioner Norton agreed. Commissioner Thompson inquired about the garage doors.
Mr. Severson clarified the standards did not speak directly to details on garage doors and were not included
in the recommendation. Ms. Harris added there was not a specific design standard just that they had to be
compatible. Chair Pearce noted the applicant’s objection to submitting drawings and thought submitting
drawings was a reasonable request. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Thompson, Dawkins, Pearce, Norton
and Brown, NO; Commissioner Harper, YES. Motion failed 5-1.
Commissioner Thompson/Dawkins m/s to grant the appeal of PA-T1-2019-00080 only in so far as the
Condition that requires installation of horizontal siding with what the applicant proposed.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Thompson confirmed the motion would allow the applicant to do vertical siding.
Ms. Harris clarified the applicant was replacing T1-11 and corrugated metal siding with board and batten
siding with 2-inch battens and 12-inch on center. Chair Pearce confirmed they were denying all other aspects
of the appeal. Commissioner Thompson confirmed the applicant would still have to submit drawings and follow
Planning staff’s advice on compatible conditions. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Brown, Thompson,
Norton, Dawkins and Pearce, YES; Commissioner Harper, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
VIII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2019-00012
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 945 Tolman Creek Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Sean Darrell / Rogue Planning & Development
DESCRIPTION: The application is request for a three-unit/four-lot Outline and Final
Plan subdivision approval and Site Design Review permit to allow the construction of a
three-unit Cottage Housing Development for the property at 945 Tolman Creek Road. The
existing structure is proposed to be divided into two units, and a third 400 square foot cottage
unit is to be constructed at the rear of the property.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5;
ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 391E14CA; TAX LOT: 800.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioner Thompson, Pearce, Harper and Brown had no ex parte contact. Commissioner Norton and Dawkins
declared no ex parte contact and one site visit.
Staff Report
Senior Planner Derek Severson submitted an exhibit into the record (see attached). He provided a
presentation (see attached):
Cottage Housing Proposal Easement/Tree
Vicinity Map Existing Residence
Proposed Site Plan Units 1 & 2
Landscape/Wildfire Plan New Unit #3
Ashland Planning Commission
January 14, 2020
Page 5 of 6
Tolman Creek Road Frontage Tree Commission Recommendation
Staff recommended approval with the conditions in the draft Findings.
Questions of Staff
Mr. Severson confirmed Unit #2 would have a kitchen. The units would be sold individually as part of the subdivision.
The lot size complied with the code. There would also be fire separation between units when they divided the existing
dwelling.
Applicant’s Presentation
Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning & Development Services/Provided a presentation (see attached):
Aerial Map Site plan of Unit #3
Cottage Site Plan Landscaping/Wildfire Plan
Photos of Unit #1 and #2 Utilities/Infrastructure/Stormwater/Water
Utilities
The proposal retained the natural features of the site. Fifty percent of the units would abut open spaces with substantial
private open space. Sean Darrow, the property owner, explained how they exceeded green construction standards.
The property was pesticide and chemical free. Ms. Gunter added they would prune trees prior to the certificate of
occupancy to avoid having to shave the backside of the pine tree in the backyard.
Questions of the Applicant - None
Public Testimony - None
Rebuttal by Applicant - None
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioner Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve the PA-T2-2019-00012. DISCUSSION: Commissioner
Dawkins thought it was a straight forward project. Parking had been a preliminary concern but this section
of Tolman Creek Road did not have parking issues. Chair Pearce explained the LID offset his concerns
regarding the street standards. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Brown, Thompson, Norton, Harper,
Dawkins and Pearce, YES. Motion passed.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned 8:35 p.m.
Submitted by,
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
January 14, 2020
Page 6 of 6