Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-10-05 Historic PACKET HISTORIC COMMISSIONMEETING AGENDA Community Development Building –51 Winburn Way October 5,2022, 6PM I.6:00PM -REGULAR MEETING –CALL TO ORDER II.READING OF LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT “We acknowledge and honor the aboriginal people on whose ancestral homelands we live, —the Ikirakutsum Band of the Shasta Nation, including the original past indigenous inhabitants, as well as the diverse Native communities who make their home here today. We also recognize and acknowledge the Shasta village of K’wakhakha —“Where the Crow lights”—that is now the Ashland City Plaza.” III.INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMISSIONERS IV.(6:05) APPROVAL OF AGENDA(5 min) Commissioner suggested amendments to Agenda V.(6:10) APPROVAL OF MINUTES(5 min) Historic Commission electronic meeting of June 8, 2022 VI.(6:15)PUBLIC FORUM(15 min) VII.(6:30)LIAISON REPORTS (5 min) Council report (Moran) Staff report (Severson) VIII.(6:35)PLANNING ACTION REVIEW(20 min) PLANNING ACTION:PA-T1-2022-00192 SUBJECT PROPERTY:309½ North Pioneer Street APPLICANT/OWNER:Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC/Ashland Food Cooperative DESCRIPTION:A request for Site Design Review approval to modify the exterior of the historic ‘Hay Warehouse’, a contributing historic resource within the Ashland Railroad Addition historic district, located at 309½ North Pioneer Street.The proposal would add a ‘Bottle Drop’ dealer redemption kiosk/bottle bag drop zone.The drop zone is proposed as a painted shipping container with a locked deposit door that is opened by a customer’s keycard andwould enable the deposit of pre-bagged bottles and cans into the receptacle rather than customers needing to wait for them to be counted by hand. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1;MAP: 39 1E 09BA; TAX LOT: 13800 IX.(6:55)DISCUSSION ITEMS (10 min) Marking Ashland Places Update–Ken Engelund, Chair of thePublic Arts Commission “In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-9200), or by email at planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).” X.(7:05) INFORMATION ITEMS (10 min) Ashland’s CLG Program review CLG Annual Meeting XI.ADJOURNMENT ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION ELECTRONIC MEETING DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 8, 2022 Community Development/Engineering Services Building –Electronic Meeting 6:00PM CALL TO ORDER Hovenkampcalled the electronic meeting to order at6:02pm. Commissioners Present:Council Liaison: ShostromShaun Moran-ABSENT SkibbyStaff Present: EmeryBrandon Goldman; PlanningManager WhitfordRegan Trapp; Permit Technician II SwinkDerek Severson; Planner Hovenkamp Von Chamier Commissioners Absent:ALL PRESENT (6:05) APPROVAL OF AGENDA(5 min) Commissioner suggested amendments to Agenda Swink has decided not to renew his appointment with the Historic Commission. He has served on the Commission for 19 1/2years and will be greatly missed. Swink would liketo recommend thatthe same opening statement that is read at the Council meeting bereadat the opening of the Historic Commission meetings. 6:05 APPROVAL OF MINUTES(5min) Shostrom/Swink m/sto approve amended minutesforApril 6,2022.Voice vote. ALL AYES.Motion passed. Shostrom recommended edits tohis comment regarding the Elk’s building mural project: o“It’s a prominent location and will dominate the whole street scene.” Editcomment to: “Will dominate the whole historic street which could be controversial in a negative way” (6:15) PUBLIC FORUM (15 min) Shelby Scharen introduced herself to the Commissionas hopefully the newest member after appointments are made by Council. She is a landscape architect that specializes in Historic Preservation. Von Chamier has been encouraging her to apply for the Historic Commission. (6:30) LIAISON REPORTS (5 min) Council report-Moran was absent so no report was given. Staff report (Goldman) –Items discussed were: th June 141PM-5PM Conclusion of the City Manager presentation regarding City budget process. There will be Discussion of Commissions and their roles. st June 216:30pm Appointments of new Commissioners 165 Water will be appealed to Council (6:35) PRE-APP REVIEW (20 min) 99 N. Main Pre-App Submittal Severson gave a presentation on the Pre-App. (See Attachment A-Severson presentation) This is listed as a primary contributing resource in the Historic District. Mark, Cindy and Dave Sandison,the applicants, addressedthe Commission regarding the pre-app application. The applicants are in their “due diligence” period and want to make sure that their idea can move forward before purchase of the property. They are open to recommendations from the Historic Commission. Commissioners reviewed the pre-application proposal and expressed their support for the design, noting however that they felt the 'clipped corner' should be retained with windows rather than a door. Commissioners suggested that the proposal was a big improvement to the site that would enliven the gateway to downtown. The applicant will put together a formal application and submit with the Historic Commission recommendations once they decide if they are moving forward with the purchase of the property. (6:55) DISCUSSION ITEMS Historic Preservation recap –Past Forward (5 min) One of the best awards ceremonieswe have had! Love that people were encouraged to speak about the history of the projects! It’s all in the stories! Update on the Status of MAPS (Marking Ashland Places)(15 min) Shostrom gave an update on “edgers” made by Goldman. (See Attachment B) Hovenkamp asked the Commissionif they wantto go forward into the next phaseand work with PAC?Yes Keep it in RailroadDistrictor moveon to another district? o Start with Railroad and then pursue another districtto keep momentum going. o Make it a 2-track approach. Review Historic Commission Meeting procedures (20 min) Key parts of quasi-judicial –Goldman o The value of recommendations to the planning commission needs to be related to the Historic Design Standards. o Make effort tobe clear with the applicants so that the Planning Commissioncan make an informed decision – (See Attachment C) for advisory recommendations published by Goldman. o This makes the Commission more aware of their advisory role. Annual Election of Officers Skibby/Shostrom m/s to re-appoint Hovenkamp as Chair andVon Chamieras Vice Chair. Whitford-Call for the question. ALL AYES. Motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Next meeting is scheduled forJuly 6,2022,at6:00pmvia Zoom. There being no other items to discuss, the meeting adjournedat8:15pm Respectfully submitted by Regan Trapp Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: SUBJECT PROPERTY: APPLICANT/OWNER: DESCRIPTION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING: MAP: TAX LOT: NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will review this Planning Action at its monthly meeting on Wednesday, October 5 at 6:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room Siskiyou Room of the Community Development & Engineering Services Building. See page 2 of this notice for information about participating in the electronic public hearing. NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: September 20, 2022 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: October 6, 2022 OVER SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.5.2.050 The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards: The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. August 18, 2022 Site DesignReview for a newstructure Property Owner: Ashland Food Cooperative 237 N Pioneer Street Ashland, OR 97520 Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC 1314-B Center Dr., PMB 457 Medford, OR 97501 Design Consultation: Shostrom Brothers LTD Dale Shostrom 1240 Tolman CreekRoad Ashland, OR 97520 Subject Property Property Address: 309 ½ Pioneer Street Map & Tax Lot: 39 1E 09BA: Tax lot 13800 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Employment Zoning: E-1 Residential Overlay Adjacent Zones: E-1, R-2 Railroad Historic District Request: Request for Site Design Review to modify theexterior of the historic, contributing structure at 309 ½ A Street through the addition of a Bottle Drop, Dealer Redemption kiosk. This kiosk is intended to facilitate the transfer of the hand counting of redeemable bottles and cans by an employeeof theAshlandFood Cooperative (AFC), to a ‘Dealer Redemption Center’ BottleBag drop zone. The drop zone is proposed as a painted shipping container with a locked deposit door that is opened by the customer’s account specific keycard. By law, Ashland Food Cooperative is required to provide a public place where redeemable beverage containers are recycled. This is presently occurringoutside of the building in the parking area and by the entry to the building. This proposal will allowfor depositofprebaggedbottlesand cans into the receptacle instead of waiting for a hand count. Page 1 of 14 The structure at 309 N. Pioneer circa 1900, is a historic primary contributing, smallone-storywoodframestructure,knownasthe"LucindaGainardRentalHouseVI."Thebuilding remained a residenceuntil1987whenitsusewasconvertedtooffice(Planning Action87-045).This649 squarefootofficespaceusedbythe Ashland Food Coop. Therearetwooffstreetparking spacesatthis property and an on-streetparkingspace. Page 2 of 14 DetailedProposal: The request istoadd a shipping container thatisretrofitted to be a BottleDrop Dealer Redemption Center bag drop location. The application seeks Site Design Review approval to modify the exterior of the historic, contributing structure at 309 ½ Pioneer Street through the addition of a Bottle Drop, Dealer Redemption kiosk. This kiosk is intended to facilitate the transfer of the hand counting ofredeemable bottles and cans by an employee of the Ashland Food Cooperative (AFC), to a ‘Dealer Redemption Center’ Bottle Bag drop facility. Following a site visit, the Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative (OBRC) who overseesall of Oregon's beverage containerrecycling suggested a new servicethat is rapidly becoming the favorite recycling method ofconsumersaround thestate.OBRC recommended that AFC become a 'DealerRedemption Center'that uses the'BottleDrop' system. The Bottle Dropredemption center isproposed tobe repurposed from a 8'x8'x20' shipping container. The proposal is to locate this self-contained, sanitary, and efficient unit on the north side of the Hay Warehouse building. The container will be setback from the Pioneer Street sidewalk, a minimum of 24- feet. This will allow for the visual preservation of the Hay Warehouse historic facade. There willbe no alterations to the warehouse structure itself. The BottleDrop redemption center exterior walls will be painted a dark color, matching the warehouse historic 'rusty' metal siding to keep the appearance as low keyas possible. As with current refundablebottleand canreturns the tripsto drop bags or haveredeemablecontainers hand counted are anticipated to be consolidated. According to the OBRC representatives that is how the redemptioncenterspresentlyareutilized. Parking: The warehouse building is 1,872 square feet and the bottle redemption containeradds 160 square feet of area. According to AMC 18.4.3.040, the 2,032 square foot warehouse structure requires 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, or one vehicle space per two employees whichever is less, plus 1 space per company vehicle. There are two employees that hand count theredeemable bottles and cansand are ‘assigned’ to the warehouse building. Based on the “whichever is less” statement, there is one space required for the warehouse building required per the two employees, and there is not an associated company vehicle. One parking space is required. There are eight spaces immediately to the south of the warehouse property on the Coop Site, there and additional 41 parking spaces in the other areas of the CoOp There is a driveway access from A Street that presently provides for two parking spaces for employees. These spaces will be retained but will have a physical barrier (construction cones) to prevent use of the spaces as drop off parking. These spaces will be resurfaced with asphalt or concrete. The driveway parking space is the loading zone for the OBRC BottleDrop Bag collection truck. The bag collection truck will schedule pick up of the redeemed bags on a weekly, or as needed basis. The collection truck transports the bags to a redemption facility located at the OBRC White City plant. Page 3 of 14 The useof the driveway is an existing use. Vehiclesbacking into the driveway from A Streetto load or off-load is a use that has been occurring on the site since the 1900s. Indurstruail related trucks use of the driveway will continue and the other backup conflict space will be paved area for access to BottleDrop eliminating the backing out by employee parking and increasing safety at the intersection. Findings of fact addressing the criteria from the Ashland Municipal Code for the Conditional Use Permit request are found on the following pages. CriteriafromtheAshland LandUseOrdinance SiteDevelopmentDesignStandards Approval Criteria: 18.5.2.050 Approval Criteria AnapplicationforSiteDesignReviewshall be approved if the proposal meets the criteriain subsections A,B,C,and D below. A.UnderlyingZone.The proposal complieswithall of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building andyardsetbacks, lot areaand dimensions, densityand floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation,architecture, and other applicablestandards. Finding: The4,781squarefootpropertyisEmploymentzonedandisoccupiedby a 1,872squarefoot,historic contributingstructure. Theexistingsiteimprovementscouldbeconsiderednon-conforming development. The E-1 zone does not have setbacks requirements excepting landscape areas, parking, buffering, or building code requirements. The existing structure as a warehouse building lacks distinctive orientation to the street, lacks a formal landscape area and there are no buffers between the surface parking spaces and the adjacent parking area. The proposed small addition to the north side of the historic structure is setback substantially from the front property line where no setback is required. The structure is more than 10-feet from the north, side property line and more than 10-feet from the rear property line, adjacent to N Pioneer Street. The property is in the detailed site review zone and developments are subject to a Floor Area Ratio standard of .5. The structure on the property and the increased area brings the property closer to the required FAR of 2,395.8 square feet in area. There is less than 85 percent of the site covered with impervious surfaces. The proposal proposes surfacing of the existing parking area which does not reduce or increase the existing impervious areas. ere are two off-street parking spaces present in the driveway access from A Street. According toAMC Th 18.4.3.040, the 2,032 square foot warehouse structure requires 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, or one vehicle space per two employees whichever is less, plus 1 space per company vehicle. There are two employees that hand count the redeemable bottles and cans and are ‘assigned’ to the warehouse Page 4 of 14 building.There is not a company vehicle. Based on the “whichever is less” statement, there is one space required for the warehouse building required per the two employees. Thepaved drivewaywill beutilizedbythe scheduled OBRCboxtruck.These pick-ups will be scheduled and like most delivery and pickup drivers, they are familiar with their route and the complexities of each site they attend too. In addition to the single parking space required for the warehouse structure, there is ample parking provided on the adjacent properties owned by the same property owner and easement to the parking areas can be provided. The adjacent office at 309 N Pioneer Street requires 1.2 spaces (600SF office / 500') with three (3) spaces provided (two off-street and one on-street) and the Ashland Food Coop building requires 42 spaces (see pg. 5) and has 42 on-site with an additional 12 diagonal spaces on 'A' St. According to the OBRC representatives, the customers of the coop properties are the ones using the drop box and unique trips are not generated by the redemption facility. Additionally, other facilities are proposed in Ashland so there is not pressure of this facility being the only one. Signage:Directional Signage exists on theend of the building that states, “No Parking”. An exempt sign ofless than two square feet in area indicating the BottleDrop redemption facility is located around the corner.ThesignageontheBottleDropredemptionfacilityexplainingoperationissmallinareaandnot readableorreadilyvisiblefromthe A Streetright-of-way. Hours of Operation: The BottleDrop redemption facility hours will correspond with the Ashland Food Coop hours of operation which at this time are 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM B.OverlayZones.The proposal complieswithapplicableoverlay zone requirements(part 18.3). Finding: The property is subject to the HistoricDistrictStandards for exterior additions. As evidenced in the findingsbelowit can be found thattheproposed s converted shipping container to create the BottleDrop redemption facility complies with the SiteDesignStandards for Employment zoned property with a historic industrial use, and is consistent with the standards for expansion of a non-conforming site. C.SiteDevelopment and DesignStandards.The proposal complieswith the applicable Site Development andDesign Standards of part18.4,exceptas provided by subsectionE, below. 18.4.2.040Non-ResidentialDevelopment Finding: The use ofthe site is non-residential intheEmploymentzone. B. Basic SiteReviewStandards. 1.OrientationandScale. Page 5 of 14 Finding: The existing Hay Warehouse building is orientedtowards A Street with a large sliding warehouse door. There are two smaller doors on the north side of the structure.There are no openings for customers or pedestrian entrance to the historic warehouse building. Thebuilding is setback only a few feet from the A Street façade. The proposal is to install a completely utilitarian facility that does not provide interior access to the warehouse or the converted shipping container. The converted shipping container is proposed on the north side of the structure and the container will be placed between these doors. The refurbished container is setback substantially from A Street and will not impact the orientation of the building to the public street. A solid surface walkway will be provided from the sidewalk to the door of the container to allow easier access to the key card activated door. The driveway accessing the warehouse building is to the side of the structure. Vehicle orientation remains the same. 2.Streetscape. Finding: The streetscape is not proposed to be altered. The curbside sidewalk and the driveway are existing elements that will not be relocated or removed. The large setback of the additional area will not alter the streetscape. Landscaping. 3. Finding: The site ‘landscaping’ is pre-existing and is not proposedto be altered. There is no irrigation source at the site and due to the door at the endofthe building for the warehouse, theonly location for landscaping would be as far from the existing improved landscape areas and in an areathatwouldprovidetobenefittothesite. Theuseofthestructureremainswarehouseuse, thedrivewayaccess,andtheparkingpadexist onsite. Exceptpavingtoprovide a solidsurfaceforthecontainer,truckaccess,andanaccessible route,therearenophysicalalterationstothesiteproposed. A planterareaofapproximately25squarefeetintwofourfootroundpaintedstocktanksor similarisproposedtoprovidelandscapeareaandtopreventparkingwithintheareaatthefront oftheHaysWarehousebuilding. 4.DesignatedCreek Protection. Page 6 of 14 Finding: Not applicable 5.NoiseandGlare. Finding: Additional light and glare beyond what is standard in the employment zone are not anticipated. There are existing exterior yard lights and cameras on the warehouse structure that are directed downward and focus on the property. The hours of operationof the BottleDrop aretimedwith the hoursof the AshlandFood Cooperativeand will not generate morenoisethan theexisting hand count customers awaiting the employee. Thismayreduce the noise levelas it’s a dropand go system versus an at times, 30 min. wait for the line to be workedthrough. A gooseneck light standard over the BottleDrop access door is necessary, itwould bedirected downwardsto the door of the BottleDrop and only during the hours of operation or motion activated. 6. Expansion of ExistingSitesand Buildings. Forsitesthat do not conform to the standards of section18.4.2.040 (i.e., nonconforming developments), anequalpercentage of the site must be madeto comply with the standards of this sectionas the percentage of building expansion. Forexample,if a building areaisexpanded by 25 percent,then 25 percent of the site must be brought up to the standards required by this document. Finding: The existing site is non-conforming in that it does not have any landscaping (AMC 18.4.4.030.F), or parking spacebuffer totheproperty line per AMC 18.4.4.030.F.2.a. Thesitelocation,lotsize,structurelocation,setbacks,coverage,landscapeareas,vehicleparking bufferare non-conformingand through theapproval of the small shipping container ‘addition’ on the sideofthestructure will not increase the non-conformity. There is not additional lot area to lot install additional parking, landscapeareasor vegetated buffers. The site is coming into closer compliance with the standards forvehicle maneuvering area in commercial zones to be paved and with the proposed landscape improvements. Two, raised landscape planters are proposed that will provide for required landscape improvements and prevent parking in front of the Hay Warehouse building. These are proposed as painted galvanized stock tank in either the oval or round shape to prevent vehicularaccess area behind sidewalk placed upon the existing surface. The area of the planters is 25.12 square feet. Page 7 of 14 Thepaving ofthedriveway is a required standard in AMC18.4.3.080.E.1 and theaddition of asphalt or concrete area is substantially more than the 8.5 percent of the site that is being expanded. Paving or concrete surfacing brings the site closer to conformance with the Site Design Standards. The existing lot coverage is retained and not to be enlarged leaving the site development area and impactsthesame as they have been since at least theearly1900s. C.DetailedSiteReviewStandards. Finding: The property is located withinthe DetailSite Review Zone. The proposed BottleDrop redemption facility increases the Floor Area Ratio of the structure slightly, by 8.5 percentthus increasing conformity withrequired FAR. The existinghistoricstructures orientationtowards A Steetis not impacted by the proposal.The existingHayWarehouse building is orientedtowards A Streetwith a large sliding warehouse door. There are two smallerdoors onthe north side of the structure. There are no window or door openings for customers or pedestrian entrance to the historic warehouse building. The structure does not have, nor would it be appropriate to install 20 percent of the wall area facing thestreet in display areas, windows, or doorways for view into the warehouse structure. The proposal does not provide windows that allow view into working areas, lobbies, pedestrian entrances, or display areas as they do not exist on the historic warehouse structure and the BottleDrop redemption facility is utilitarian in nature like the warehouse and the secure key card/fob activated door is utilized to prevent theft of the redeemable beverage containers within. he existing warehouse building is setbackthree feet from the A Street sidewalk. The proposal is T to install a completely utilitarian facility that doesnotprovide interior access to the warehouse or the converted shipping container. The shippingcontainer is setback 24-feet from the façade of the historic structure, this diminishes the visual impacts to the historic building. The converted shipping container is setback substantially more than 20-feet from the street and does not have a pedestrian entrance / exist but is a walkup door fordropping redeemable bottles and cans. The pedestrian orientation is provided by thepaving ofthe parking area to provide access totheelectronically operated dropdoor. The shipping container willbepainted a dark color to minimize its visual impacts and upon the historic Hay Warehouse structure. The shipping container is substantially shorter than the existing structure, setback substantially from the street and painted in a manner that will camouflage with the exterior colors and materials of the Hay Warehouse. D.AdditionalStandardsfor Large ScaleProjects. Page 8 of 14 Finding: Not applicable. 18.4.2.050HistoricDistrictDevelopment B.HistoricDistrictDesignStandards. Finding: The property is in theemployment zoneand is an industrial use type of structure. The proposal is consistent with the historic use and architectureofthe Hays Warehouse. According tothe National Registerof Historic Places Registration Documents; “Given its proximity to the railroad and access to shipping, traditional developments within the Ashland Railroad District included numerous industrial and related uses. Livery stables, transfer warehouses and similar uses were once common. Today, only a few of these simple industrial structures remain with the most notable being the Ashland Fruit and Produce Association Warehouse (Site 149.0,built1912)and its relatedthough separatelyinventoried HayWarehouse (42.0, built1908). It can be found that proposal is historically consistent as a transfer warehouse serving a modern purpose. The proposal does not substantially impact the historic district design standard objectives such as a sense of entry, a rhythm of openings, and compatible materials. 2. Height. Finding: The eight-foot-tall structure is substantially less than the existing Hay Warehouse structure and will notaffect the height of the historic structure. The proposal does not vary in height from the heights of the historic buildings in the vicinity. 3. Scale. Finding: The scale of the property is not impacted by the proposed BottleDrop redemption facility. The eight-foot-tall shipping container is substantially less tall than then the existing 16-foot adjacent wall height and is proportionally scaled to the scale of historic warehouse building. 4.Massing. Finding: The massing of the historic structure is not altered with theproposal.The proposed modified shipping container is a smaller mass that is as varied as the historic warehouse structure. Page 9 of 14 Theexistingexterior treatments provides a verticalfaçadeon a lowhorizontal form consistent with historical, industrial building and shipping oriented rectangular and boxy rhythms. 5.Setback. Finding: The proposed BottleDrop redemption facitiliy at the side of the building is setback 24-feet from the front façade of the building. 6. Roof. Finding: Not applicable. 7. Rhythm of Openings. Finding: Not applicable. No discernable change. 8.Base or Platforms. Finding: The existingstructure lacks a baseor platform. Thestructure is raised off the ground with a rock and concrete pier block. The proposal is to setthe convertedshipping container,BottleDrop redemption facility upon theasphalt surface. This is a compatible base in the Employment zone. 9.Form. Finding: The formof the structure is industrial in shape, setback, coverage, consistent with the historic use of the property. 10.Entrances. Finding: The BottleDrop redemption facility is not an entrance to the structure and the sense of entry of the historic structure is not modified. Page 10 of 14 11.Imitation of HistoricFeatures. Finding: The material of the exterior of the modified shipping container is vertically orientedmetalsides with a 3 X 4 opening thatis keycard or QR code activated lockingsystem.The‘structure’is industrial in nature similar tothe historic warehouse structure that the BottleDrop facility is adjacent to. The proposed exteriormaterial of metal is consistent with this standard. 12. Additions: Finding: The proposal is not for an addition it is a standalone facility that is not structurally connected. 13.Garage: Finding: The Hay Warehouse is a garage type building with a largedoor on the A Street facing façade. The proposed BottleDrop redemption containeris setback substantially from the façade. The industrialnatureof thecontaineris an appropriate addition to a warehouse structure that provides a legally required service that is not visual distraction with a compatible historically appropriate exterior. SiteDesignReview Standards Continued D.CityFacilities.The proposal complieswith the applicable standards insection 18.4.6 Public Facilities, andthatadequatecapacity of Cityfacilitiesforwater,sewer,electricity, urban stormdrainage,paved accesstoand throughout the property, andadequate transportation canandwill be provided to the subject property. Finding: There are adequate public facilities that service the property. There is an existing driveway apron serving the Hay Warehouse historic structure that will remain. Adequate transportation is provided to the Ashland Food Coop on the public streets that abut the property. There are two surface parking spaces adjacent to the warehouse building that are proposed to be paved. Though those parking spaces are legally allowed and necessary to retain the functionality of the historic warehouse structure, the driveway location at the curve in A Street creates a potential conflict point for automobiles, other vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles. Page 11 of 14 Thepaving of these parking spaces is proposed to allow better access for thescheduled OBRC pickup truckand toprovide a more direct route from thesidewalk and parking areas ofthe associated Coop. To prevent the use of the driveway, there will be safety cones blocking the driveway. This allows for the BottleDroppickup truck to backinto the site and have access to a solid surface access area and allows for a solid surface area for the BottleDrop redemption facility to be placed and access tothe BottleDrop redemption facility door. There are ample parking spaceson theimmediately adjacent Coop properties and on street parking spaces publicly available in the immediate vicinity. According to the representative of the OBRC, the benefit of the BottleDrop redemption centers similar to the proposal, the customers of these facilities are using them when they go to thefacilitywherethe BottleDrop is conveniently located, and they do not create individual trips. They are ancillary to the store where the facility is located. With additional facilities being approved in Ashland at the various grocery stores, the convenience of the BottleDrop will allow for consolidated trips as expressed by the OBRC representative. There are publicsidewalks along both sides of A Street,Pioneer Street and First Streets. On street parking will continue to be utilized as it presently is. There are on street parking spaces presently along A Street just to the east of the Hay Warehouse building on the north side of the Coop. There are 12, on-street parking spaces on First Street adjacent to the Coop. There are six on-streetspaceson A Street, north of the adjacent property. Additionally, there are other on street parking spaces across A Street. It is anticipated that as presently the pattern of use is that vehicles park on-street and the occupants exist the vehicle and then walks to their destination in one of the numerous commercial businesses in the vicinity. There are crosswalks provided at the intersections of A and Pioneer Street and A First Street. It is not anticipated that the use of the on-street parking will be altered by the creation of the BottleDrop redemption facility. The proposed BottleDrop container will not have any impact on water, sewer, or electricity more than a typical employment/commercial type of use. As required by building codes the structure andthe new paved surfaces will be connected to the urban storm drain facilities to prevent site run-off. E.ExceptiontotheSiteDevelopment and DesignStandards.The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development andDesign Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstancesineither subsection 1, 2, or 3, below, are found toexist. Finding: No exceptions are requested. Page 12 of 14 Photo 1: Door to redeemable container drop. Similar in type to proposedshipping container. Photo 2: Example of signage at the drop access door. Hours of operation are the same as the Ashland Food Coop vs. those noted here Page 13 of 14 From: Eric Chambers <echambers@obrc.com> Date: July22, 2022 at 4:29:36 PM PDT To: Gretchen Bell <gbell@obrc.com> Subject: Ashland Food Coop Hi Gretchen, Thanks for passing along the question from Ashland Food Co-op about the volume of customers/bags that we tendto see at Dealer Redemption Center bag drop locations. To get some perspective about the number of daily visits/bagsthey might see at the Ashland Food Co-op site, I pulled data for a comparable store (New Seasons 7- Corners in Portland). That store has an average of 20 door scans per day at their drop facility (door scans correlatestrongly with individual customers). No two stores are the same, so I just provide that as background/reference for comparative purposes. While the daily limit for bags dropped at Dealer Redemption Centers is 15 bags per day, realistically the typical customer drops the number of bags they can fit in the trunk of a car, so between 1 and 3 bags. The higher limit is intended to prevent somebody from showing up with a trailer full of bags, blocking access, and clogging the drop door. With the 15 bag limit, if the retailer sees somebody abusing the program, they can just take a photo of the bags/bag tags and share them with us, and we have the ability to take account action against individuals violating our terms and conditions. Another important factor is that, typically, these are not unique vehicle trips to the sites. Customers couple their bagdrop off trips with their already existing shopping trips, which is a big advantage of this program, and dramatically reduces unique vehicle trips to the facilities. Finally, work is underway to create a BottleDrop Express site at the Shop-n-Cart, which will also help spread out the bag volume/demand over multiple sites, easing any issues around volume or congestion at either site. It’s a big advantage to be able to deploy two similar bag drop facilities/options in the same community at the same time. I hope that information helps! Thanks, EC EricChambers External Relations Director OregonBeverageRecycling Cooperative th 17300 SE 120Ave. Clackamas, OR 97015 O: (503) 542-2928 | M: (971) 930-5163 Page 14 of 14 CLG Program Review The primary purpose of this reviewis to ensure that the local government continues to meet the basic requirements to be a Certified Local Government. CLG: Ashland Contact Person: Brandon Goldman 1. Historic Preservation Commission Is the commission fully constituted (no vacancies), and have copies of current members’ resumes been forwarded to the SHPO? Are reasonable efforts made to appoint at least a few historic preservation “professionals”? Approximately how many times per year does the commission meet? Are written minutes kept and available to the public? Are proper public notices given for commission meetings? Comments: Has two vacancies, the commission currently has 9 seats and are considering changing to 7. A small group (board of the full commission) is available every Thursday afternoon for early feel back on projects. Two will be appointed likely in September. Current make-up includes: historic photographer (has been on for 30 years), designer and builder, interested public and owner of historic property, realtor (home restoration), landscape architect. Scheduled for monthly meetings, but when there are no actions to review, meetings are canceled. So, they meet about 6-8 times a year. Minutes are posted online on the historic commission page. Recruitment is a challenge. There are some changes to the city’s commissions, historic being preserved. Notice to the newspaper for all planning actions, then general meeting notices, posted online with an interactive map. What’s happening in my city section of the website. Recommendations: Consider professional organizations, archaeologist, etc. as sources of recruitment. 2. Protection of Historic Properties – Includes code review and evaluation of two review decisions if any. Does the historic preservation ordinance still contain appropriate protections for designated historic properties? Are the historic design review decisions made by the staff and/or commission appropriate and in keeping with accepted historic preservation standards? Does the protection meet state law and rule? Are commission members and staff provided training in how to apply historic preservation standards? Are local historic preservation decisions consistent with decisions made through either the state or federal historic preservation process? Comments: The codeneeds to be updated to meeting the goal 5 rule, NR properties can’t be automatically regulated, there must be a local designation process for anything after 2017. It is also missing a local landmark designation process. Code seems to support the process, the preliminary review is very helpful. They have run into questions related to transition areas and how to handle those decisions. A solution may be to make clearer options for the transition areas. Illustration in the code is helpful. Demolition language could be updated. Training – process for criteria review was recently provided. Recommendations:Consider adding more detail about the commission roles and survey. And add a local designation process to the code. Here is a link to the model ordinance. Kuri will find the national register reference in the code. Have Kuri share about the CLG program with the whole commission. Join NAPC (National Alliance of Preservation Commissions) and ask the question about transition area review. Attend 9/26/2022 theCLG workshop, Oregon Heritage Conference, NAPC Forum. Ask SHPO for training as well. Update 18.5.2.020 Applicability A4 to remove the automatic review of National register properties without a local designation process. 3. Maintain Appropriate Historic Property Records Is there an organized filing system for properties that have been surveyed or listed in historic site registers? Are these records available to the public? Are survey and inventory records consistent with SHPO standards and provided to the SHPO for integration into the master statewide system? Comments: The city hasn’t had a survey in a couple of decades. Inventory books are available online and in- person. Historic district map is on the planning page and it pulls up historic photos,maps, and links to the district. Interested in making a story map for each property. Internal – building permit software flags historic district! Electronic archive system for planning is linked by address. Recommendations: Consider new context studies and surveys to determine additional properties of historic significance. Consider the story map option for a future CLG grant. 4. Participation in the National Register Nomination Process Has the CLG provided SHPO written comments on National Register nominations? Have nominations submitted by the CLG been approved by the State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation and the National Park Service? Comments: CLGs must comment on and allow public comment on National Register nominations from the area. No new ones recently in Ashland. Recommendations: Consider new nominations or expanding the history of the existing districts. 5. Public Education and Awareness Does the CLG sponsor or support events and activities that promote awareness, understanding, and appreciation for historic properties within the community? Comments: They do preservation awards. They had the first in-person on since COVID for 2022 in May. Mayor attended. Celebrated several projects. They have started a history Medallion project – imbeds the panels in the sidewalk. The groundbreaking for this art piece is important. Partnering with the arts organization. They have a couple of flyers about owning historic properties and how to do work on them. Recommendations: Awards are awesome! Use the CLG funds to provide supplementary events around the plaque and art items. Consider additional activities like scavenger hunts, coloring pages, brochures (community development dept document center). Establish some goal setting for the commission. Here is a link to the planning guide mentioned at the meeting. 6. Grant Management Has the CLG used its grant funds appropriately and completely? Has grantpaperwork been submitted to the SHPO in a timely and organized fashion? Are grant records in good order and maintained for the appropriate 5-year (?) retention period? Comments: Ashland hasn’t applied for some time. When they did, management was good. Recommendations: Apply for the grant in the future. Overall evaluation Meets Requirements X Does Not Meet Requirements 9/26/2022 Comments: Excellent design review processes and opportunity for advance conversation. Recommendations:Consider developing additional context and exploring survey for more recent history. Also consider adding in additional community engagement. SHPO Evaluator: ___Kuri Gill_____________ _____________________ ________ (print name) (signature) Date: ____9/2/2022__________________________________ 9/26/2022