Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-04-06 Historic MIN ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION ELECTRONIC MEETING Meeting Minutes April 6, 2022 Community Development/Engineering Services Building –Electronic Meeting CALL TO ORDER: Hovenkampcalled the electronic meeting to order at6:00pm. Commissioners Present:Council Liaison: ShostromShaun Moran WhitfordStaff Present: EmeryBrandon Goldman; PlanningManager HovenkampRegan Trapp; Permit Technician II Swink Von Chamier Commissioners Absent:Skibby APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Shostrom/Emery m/sto approve minutesforMarch 2,2022.Voice vote. ALL AYES.Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM: Elk’s building mural project -Peter Finkle and John Pugh John Pugh(local muralist)presented hisideasregarding the muralto the Commission. John showed the Commission some of his work that he has done in many places. He likes to create illusions with his art to create the human experience. Theproposalencompasses the original Chautauqua Dome, paintedblue with Native American vibe and the idea that Ashland represents a spiritual energy. The name of the painting is called “Enchantment” which depicts and tells the story of Ashland. There is no time frame on this projectyet becausehe wants to make sure that everyone is on the same pageand approves of the design. He will be working with the Elks to raise money for the entire project. Commission feedback: This is creating interest with the 3D design and allows it to feel more real. Loves the whimsical way of the design on one of the most historic buildings in Ashland. Work is spectacular and will be a nice addition to downtown. Wonderful to have indigenous representation. This type of mural will stand out and looks very provocative and fun. Will dominate the whole historic street which could be controversial in a negative way. The mural will engage people to ask questions about the community and invite visitors to see what Ashland has to offer. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: Councilor Moran gave the liaison report. Items discussed were: New City Manager Joe Lessard -Making necessarypersonnelhires and dealing with fiscal issues. New Assistant City Manager Sabrina Cotta welcomed. Departments within the general fund will have to cut 5-10%. Council working with SOU on community survey regarding City services. PLANNING ACTION REVIEW PLANNINGACTION:PA-T2-2022-00037 SUBJECTPROPERTY:165WaterStreet,160HelmanStreetand95VanNess (cornerofVanNess&WaterStreets) APPLICANT:RoguePlanning&DevelopmentServices,LLC,agentfor OWNERS:MagnoliaInvestmentGroup,LLCandGilLivni DESCRIPTION:Arequestforaneight-lotcommercialsubdivisiontoconstructaphasedmixed-usedevelopmentfor thethreepropertiesatthecornerofVanNessandWaterStreetsincluding95VanNessStreet,165WaterStreetand 160HelmanStreet.Theapplicant’sPhaseIrequestsSiteDesignReviewapprovalforfivemixed-usebuildings consistingoftwogroundfloorcommercialspaceswithtworesidentialunitsaboveineachbuilding,aswellas associatedsurfaceparking,utilityinfrastructureandstreetimprovements.Theremainingthreebuildingsiteswouldbe developedinalaterphase.TheapplicationalsoincludesarequestforaPhysical&Environmental(P&E)Constraints ReviewPermitbecausetheproposalincludesdevelopmentonsevereconstraintslandswithslopesgreaterthan35 percentandonfloodplaincorridorlands;arequestforanExceptiontotheDevelopmentStandardsforHillsideLands; arequestforaTreeRemovalPermittoremove20treesonthesubjectpropertiesandwithintheadjacentrights-of- way;arequestforanExceptiontotheSiteDevelopmentandDesignStandardstoallow3,087squarefeetofplaza spacewherethestandardsrequire5,624squarefeet;andarequestforanExceptiontoStreetStandardstoallow parkingbayswithstreettreesinbump-outsalongVanNessAvenueratherthanstandardparkrowplantingstrips. COMPREHENSIVEPLANDESIGNATION:Employment;ZONING:E-1;ASSESSOR’SMAP:391E04CC;TAX LOTS#:2000,2100&7100 Hovenkamp disclosed that she had ex-parte contact with Mr. Brouillard, a neighbor who submitted his comments to the Commission via email. Hovenkampexpressed that this would have no impact on her decision moving forward. Von Chamier recused herself from the meeting as she is working with the applicants on this project. Severson gave the updated staff report for PA-T1-2022-00037.These include the latest revisions submitted to Planning. Hovenkamp opened the public hearing to the applicants. Applicants present: Amy Gunter –Rogue Planning and Development Gil Livni –Owner Amy Gunter addressed the Commission regarding the revisions since the last meeting. She stated that this is an eight-lotsubdivision reduced to six lots with eight condo buildings. A solar setback waiver is no longer required, and lot consolidation eliminates frontage issue for previously proposed lot 5. Detail site design review plaza area exceeds minimum area and no longer seeks an exception. Looking into public alley to possibly be named “factory alley.” See presentation –Attachment A The Commission had comments and questions for the applicant’s regarding the following: How much lower overall can the 3-storybuilding be? o Gunter-Height will be reduced by 2 ft. all buildings along Helman average 36.5 –38.5 ft tall. They could bring the decks in a bit to create less massing. How do we understand transition zone compliance? Does one take precedence over the other? o Severson-Transition between R3 and Employment zoningis findinga balance between the two and still finding ways to respond to the transition while allowing development to happen. There is nothing in the code to help out the residences on the west side regarding solar. Public Testimony and commentssubmitted: Eric Bonetti–Ashland resident(see attached photos–Attachment B)Ownsadjacent property at 105 Water Street. Mr. Bonetti presented photos of the area and spoke about how much he enjoys the Railroad District. He said that this project is a good opportunity to clean up the area, bring jobs and new residents to the area.He spoke about several buildings in the area that are similar in detailing and materialsand feels the designs submitted are appropriate for the area. Cat Gould –See comment attached(Attachment C) Mark Brouillard –See comment attached (Attachment D) Amy Gunter stated that It’s critical that property owners pay attention to what they are buying into when they purchase properties near transitionalzones. Hovenkamp opened to the Commission to comments. The Commission deliberatedthe following before rendering their decision: The business of the City is to create tax lots and to make revenue –In that way, the rules are stacked against the residents and in favor of the developer. Incongruity in building height between commercial and residential zones. The transitionalzone was added to realize that there does need to be a balance between the two zones. How can you adjust to make it more compatible? Balancing design standards and zoning standards. Commission should be forthright and compelling about their recommendations. Mostbuildings in the area stand alone and these proposed buildings stand together and will look like three big apartment buildings. Do the changes that the applicant made conform to the recommendations? Shostrom/Whitford m/s to deny PA-T1-2022-00037until recommendations below have been met. Voice vote. ALL AYES. Motion passed. Recommendation: The HistoricCommissionwould like to thank the applicants for the proposed building design modifications since the Commission reviewed the project last month. The Commission finds that most of the incremental changes are effective in that they address some of the Commission’s concerns regarding the building façades and pedestrian amenities, but these revisions fall short in focusing on the major issues identified in the March meeting, which had to do with the height, scale, and massing of the buildings as they relate to the Historic District Design Standards (AMC 18.4.2.050.B.2-B.4.) This massive development of eight nearly identical “cookie cutter” designs has no precedent in Ashland or its historic districts. The Commission cannot support approval of a project that has demonstrated such disregard in their attempt to comply with our historic standards and the scale of our city andneighborhoods. In particular, the three buildings facing Helman Street with a height of up to 40 feet and three stories will overwhelm the mostly single-story historic residences across the street. These proposed buildings fail to achieve an appropriate scale and façade compatibility to the adjacent historic streetscape. Additionally, the zero setback to the sidewalk exacerbates the building mass and scale that will overwhelm the adjacent pedestrian traffic. By comparison, the Plaza Inn & Suites hotel on the same side of Helman Street, nearer to downtown, has 15-to 20-foot setbacks and is only two-stories in height. In the Historic Commission’s view, the building architecture and landscape design on this project is very attractive and high quality, but, the buildings are just not compatible with the scale of the historic district residences in the impact area, across Helman Street. For these reasons, the Commission cannot support moving this application forward. With that in mind the Historic Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the project be denied. PLANNING ACTION:PA-T1-2022-00179 SUBJECT PROPERTY:247 Seventh Street OWNER:Bar-Gem Vineyards, LLC APPLICANT:Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC DESCRIPTION:A request for a Conditional Use Permit to expand an existing non-conforming structure by approximately 30 square feet. The existing building was constructed prior to current regulations and encroaches into a six-foot side yard setback. In the area of this encroachment there is a small bathroom, and the applicant is requesting to enlarge it to increase the floor area and headroom. The proposed addition is approximately 29.75 square feet, of which approximately 19.2 square feet encroach into the setback.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low- Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; MAP: 39 1E 09BA; TAX LOT #: 2800 There was no conflict of interest or ex-parte contact indicated by the Commission. Seversongave the staff report for PA-T1-2022-00179 Hovenkamp opened the public hearing to the applicants. Applicants present: Amy Gunter –Rogue Planning and Development Jean and John MacConaghy –Owners Carlos Delgado -Architect Amy Gunter addressed the Commission regarding the project. See presentation -Attachment E There were no questions from the Commission. Whitford/Swink m/s to approve PA-T1-2022-00179as submitted. Voice vote. ALL AYES. Motion passed. PRE –APP REVIEW 160 Lithia Way:Pre-application submittal See presentation -Attachment F Applicants present: Raymond Kistler –KSW Architects Tom Lamore –KSW Architects Amy Gunter –Rogue Planning and Development Guidance to applicants: Appreciate the idea of eliminating the juliet balconies. Good design There is a hole in that side of thestreetthat needs to be filled and it works well with the neighborhood. 485 A Street:Pre-application submittal Applicantspresent: Steve Hoxmeier -Applicant and Owner Steve Hoxmeierspoke about his project. He stated that he would be extending towards A’ Streetusing the same materials and design to match with the building. There will be more focus on the commercial frontage of the building. Goldman noted that the drawings would need to be submitted by a design professional once a formal planning application is submitted. Guidance to applicant: Scaled drawings showing windows on lower level and detail in the gable ends. More detailed drawings submitted by a design professional. Show on site plan what the plan for phase 3 would be. Show existingand changes inelevation. DISCUSSION ITEMS Historic Preservation Week –PastForward th Historic Preservation Awards scheduled for Tues, May 17@12:30 2022 nominations -Decide on winners HPW Addition Winner:542 Siskiyou Commissioner assigned:Whitford HPW Addition Winner: 73 Pine Commissioner assigned:Shostrom HPW MU-Commercial Winner:185-199 Lithia Way Commissioner assigned:Von Chamier HPW Individual Winner: 175 Church Commissioner assigned:Swink HPW Civic Winner: MAPS Project Commissioner assigned:Hovenkamp Wildfire Mitigation Construction Standards (R327.4) Goldman briefly discussed the standards with the Commission to make sure that they were familiar with it. He went on to say that if there were any questions of the Commission regarding these standards that he would direct them to the City of Ashland building official. ADJOURNMENT Next meeting is scheduled forMay 4,2022,at6:00pmvia Zoom. There being no other items to discuss, the meeting adjournedat9:30pm Respectfully submitted by Regan Trapp Eight lot subdivision reduced to six lots with eight condominium buildingsLot consolidation eliminates frontage issue for previously proposed Lot 5Solar Setback Waivers no longer requiredDetail Site Design Review Plaza Area exceeds minimum areaHistoric District Design Compliance and Modifications ••••• TO PROPOSAL OVERALL MODIFICATIONS Eric Bonetti Public Comment – Historic Commission 4/6/2022 Photos presented during oral testimony: Eric Bonetti Public Comment – Historic Commission 4/6/2022 Photos presented during oral testimony Eric Bonetti Public Comment – Historic Commission 4/6/2022 Photos presented during oral testimony Eric Bonetti Public Comment – Historic Commission 4/6/2022 Photos presented during oral testimony Eric Bonetti Public Comment – Historic Commission 4/6/2022 Photos presented during oral testimony Eric Bonetti Public Comment – Historic Commission 4/6/2022 Photos presented during oral testimony Eric Bonetti Public Comment – Historic Commission 4/6/2022 Photos presented during oral testimony Eric Bonetti Public Comment – Historic Commission 4/6/2022 Photos presented during oral testimony Eric Bonetti Public Comment – Historic Commission 4/6/2022 Photos presented during oral testimony Attachment B From:Cat gould To:Planning Commission - Public Testimony Subject:4/12/22 PC hearing testimony Date:Monday, April 04, 2022 3:51:21 PM \[EXTERNAL SENDER\] Dear commissioners, I live very close to this proposed development and feel for the following reasons it is not a good fit for our neighbourhood in the Skidmore historic district, nor responsible development for Ashland as a whole. The design has not made any attempt to blend into the historic nature of our modest neighbourhood. Nor takes into account the necessity to curtail energy consumption in every household. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2022-00037 SUBJECT PROPERTY:165 Water Street, 160 Helman Street and 95 Van Ness (corner of Van Ness & Water Streets) Sincerely, Cat Gould 114 Van Ness Ave, Ashland, OR 97520 Sustainability and Affordability Ashland does not need more unaffordable housing that demands huge energy consumption to keep cool in summer and warm in winter due to the high ceilings and exposure. What are the projected energy costs to keep these large high ceilinged apartments comfortable? Ashland needs housing for lower income workers that we rely on to work in our restaurants/schools/and retail stores. Many employees of the Ashland City administration can't even afford to live here. Energy costs are skyrocketing and this is not just pocket book costs, it is costs paid out in climate chaos on the poorest of the world who do not have the freedom to simply pay more to live elsewhere. It is irresponsible to be building anything less than energy efficient Energy consumption is reduced by 1% for each 10 cm of ceiling height reduction. housing. Parking Most houses in the area already use street parking which is strained during high season, this can not have been assessed by the traffic analysis due to lack of high season for the past 2 years. Flood Plain While we are in a drought cycle now we all know that this will be over at some point and the unpredictable natureof climate chaos that we have unalterably entered will continue. I have Received 4.4.2022 Attachment B to wonder why Gil Livni, who only recently lost his entire development to climate chaos and had to completely rebuild after the Almeda fire, would once again throw his buildings in the path of zoned "extreme or severe risk" of flooding. This land has Severe Constraints meaning "development of this land is discouraged" Application itself explains "the embankment was likely first created by Ashland Creek" . Shading caused by mass of structure on neighborhood and traffic The following image was taken off google earth and you can see where the 28 foot pole reaches (yellow). At a proposed average height of 40 feet the development will be approximately 40% taller than the existing pole. I have conservatively projected in orange the extent of the shadow that will be cast from this building on the homes and intersection. This intersection and the steep downhill slope of Van Ness Ave to Water st is in heavy use throughout the year by commuters, school traffic, recology vehicles, delivery trucks and the official bike corridor from the greenway and will be extremely icy throughout winter due to this shading from the building. Received 4.4.2022 Attachment A From:City of Ashland, Oregon To:planning;Regan Trapp Subject:Historic Commission Contact Form Submitted Date:Monday, April 04, 2022 6:31:16 AM \[EXTERNAL SENDER\] *** FORM FIELD DATA*** Full Name: Mark Brouillard Phone:206 661 7085 Email:Mtbrouillard@msn.com Subject:PA-T2-2022--00037 Message:To whom it may concern: I am unable to be at this week's meeting but wanted to follow-up from the last meeting. First, as a point of reference we have heard about the photo showing Ashland Iron Works and its supposed 40 foot height. That height was on the Water Strret frontage. Second, I implore you to revisit the Helman Street side. Stand in front of 173 Helman. Look at the subject property and notice a lamp post next to the gate. The propsed Buildings would be 8+ feet taller than that. Third, it seems like a rather flippant response to the Commisiins asking for different heights on the Helman Street side. Two deck/balcony changes and that is considered an elevation change? Fourth, this project still doesn't meet the AMC criteria I laid out in the last meeting. Setbacks, scale, massing, height are not even close to the homes in the on or across the street. Fifth, buildings are.still cookie cutter and don't follow the AMC which states different buildings and residential accommodation (have AMC at home, currently on an airplane). All we are asking for is something reasonable on the Helman Street side. Buildings taller than a telephone poll is not reasonable. No setbacks; again revisit the site and look at it from the sidewalk on the east side of Helman. Walk from Central towards Van Ness and invision a monolithic building with zero setback. It will block the openess of the street and any view that there once was. Doesn't seem like any equity; social, mental health, economic, or justice. This is a David versus Goliath moment that you as the historic commission have a lot of say in. Respectfully, Mark and Donna Brouillard 159 Helman Street Attachment 1 file: Attachment 2 file: Attachment 3 file: *** USER INFORMATION *** SubscriberID:-1 SubscriberUserName: SubscriberEmail: RemoteAddress:66.241.70.76 RemoteHost:66.241.70.76 RemoteUser: Received 4.4.2022