The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-05-05 Historic PACKET HISTORIC COMMISSIONELECTRONICMEETING AGENDA May 5,2021 6PM I.6:00PM -REGULAR MEETING –CALL TO ORDER II.APPROVAL OF MINUTES Historic Commission electronic meeting of April 7,2021. III.PUBLIC FORUM IV.COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT Councilor Moran V.PLANNING ACTION REVIEW PLANNING ACTION:PA-T1-2020-00145-Continuance SUBJECT PROPERTY: 912 Siskiyou Blvd. OWNER/APPLICANT: Kimber Bishop DESCRIPTION:A request for Site Design Review approval for an exterior change to an individually listed historic structureon the Nation Register of Historic Places and for the addition of a second residential unit. The proposal includes a large addition to the rear of the structure for a new master suite, as well as the construction of a two car garage with a second dwellingabove. The application includes a request to remove two trees; a 35” DBH Cedar, and a 10” DBH Japanese maple.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Multi- Family Residential;ZONING:R-2; ASSESSOR’S MAP #:391E 09 DA; TAX LOT:6600 VI.NEW ITEMS Update on Draft Duplex Code Amendments to Address State of Oregon Middle Housing Requirements VII.DISCUSSION ITEMS Historic Preservation Awards –May 20, 2021 @12PM via Zoom VIII.OLD BUSINESS None IX.ADJOURNMENT ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION ELECTRONIC MEETING DRAFT Meeting Minutes April 7, 2021 Community Development/Engineering Services Building –Electronic Meeting CALL TO ORDER: Shostromcalled the electronic meeting to order at6:06pm. Commissioners Present:Council Liaison: ShostromShaun Moran WhitfordStaff Present: SwinkMaria Harris; Planning Dept. SkibbyRegan Trapp; Secretary Hovenkamp Emery Commissioners Absent: Von Chamier APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Hovenkamp/Swink m/sto approve minutesfor March 3, 2021.Voice vote. ALL AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM: There was no one wishing to speak. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: Council Liaison Moran gave the report. Items discussed were: City Council set up an SDC charge committee. They are working together with Public Works to research the costs associated with this. The City Council has begun the reviewof city assets and there were 3 properties that were identified to sell. The 3 properties that were discussed were:E. Main Street, 380 Clay and N. Mountain Ave. PLANNING ACTION REVIEW: PLANNING ACTION:PA-T1-2021-00141-Continuance SUBJECT PROPERTY:599 East Main Street APPLICANT/OWNER:Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for Livni Family Trust (Gil Livni, Trustee) DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to modify the existing building at 599 East Main Street including converting the former church to office use and adding a new entry. The application also includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit as it involves the expansion of an existing non-conforming development. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1;MAP: 39 1E 09AC;TAX LOT #: 7600 There was no conflict of interest or ex-parte contact indicated by the Commission. Harris gave the staff report for PA-T1-2021-00141. Questions/comments that the Commissioners discussed before the public hearing: Lip in the concrete near the entrance needs a handrail by code. What is new/old regarding the windows for the project? Clarify windows on south elevation. Brick on west elevation. Transition between siding and stucco. Bases need to be the same all the way around the building. 1 Shostrom opened the public hearing to the applicants. Amy Gunter, applicant’s representative,and Gil Livni, property owner,addressed the Commission regarding this project. th The existing siding is a pressboard type of material. The 5street windows are sandwiched divided light windows st and awning slider, side by sides. 1floor windows would be replaced with true divided light. The brick that would be usedon part of the baseis called Maddoxand looks just likebrick,but it is veneer.He would like the brick to be used sparingly because of cost. Grey colored stucco with red and black brick would show on the front of the building. Shostrom closed the public hearing and opened to the Commission for discussion. Shostrom/Emerym/s toapprove/ PA-T1-2021-00141 with recommendationsbelow.Voice vote. ALL AYES. Motion passed. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PA-T1-2021-00141 TheHistoricCommissioncommendsthe applicantonthe designandefforttoremodeland repurposea historicstructurethathasbeensignificantlymodified over time.TheCommission appreciatestheadded stucco elementonthe east sideofthe building toadddefinitiontothe“tower” elementasdiscussed at theMarch3,2021HistoricCommission meeting.TheHistoricCommissionrecommendsthefollowing items are addressed. For thebaseofthebuilding theCommissionsuggestsoneofthe following threeoptions: o Providedetailshowing“veneer brickcladding” shownontherevised elevationsSD- 4.1,SD-4.2and SD-4.3willfitproperlyaround thewindowanddooropenings.The “brickcapcourse” needstobemoresubstantialandaheavier weightthan shownon theapplicationsubmittals.Extendthebrickbase aroundthebackcorner ofthe th St.side(northwestcorner) foratleastacolumnwidth. building onthe5 th o Rather than extending veneer brickcladding onthe 5St.sideofthebuilding,useitto accentthe frontentryandend brickat the northside ofthe mainentrance facing the th St.Brickshouldbeoneastside oftower as shownin intersectionofE. Main and5 therevisedelevationSD-4.1.The“brickcapcourse” needstobemoresubstantial andaheavier weightthanshownontheapplication submittals. o Retainstucco as thebase materialrather thanadding theveneer brickcladding. Replace allwindowswith TrueDividedLightCladWindows shownonrevised elevationsincluding theeastsideofthebuilding (SD-4.1) unlessprohibitedbybuilding code(e.g.proximitytopropertyline). Replace allsiding as shownonrevisedelevations(hardie-lapsidingwith7”exposure) including theeastsideofthebuilding (SD-4.1) unlessprohibitedbybuilding code(e.g. proximitytopropertyline). PLANNING ACTION:PA-T1-2021-00145 SUBJECT PROPERTY:912 Siskiyou Blvd. OWNER/APPLICANT: Kimber Bishop DESCRIPTION:A request for Site Design Review approval for an exterior change to an individually listed historic structure on the Nation Register of Historic Places and for theaddition of a second residential unit. The proposal includes a large addition to the rear of the structure for a new master suite, as well as the construction of a two-car garage with a second dwelling above. The application includes a request to remove two trees:a 35” DBH Cedar, and a 10” DBH Japanese maple.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2 DESIGNATION:Multi-Family Residential;ZONING:R-2;ASSESSOR’S MAP #:391E 09 DA; TAX LOT: 6600 There was no conflict of interest or ex-parte contact indicated by the Commission. Harris gave the staff report for PA-T1-2021-00145. Questions/comments that the Commissioners discussed before the public hearing: Details regarding windows (bay window &window on turret), beams, shingles, entry doors etc. Shortcomings to the architectural drawings. Site plan proposal of 4 parking spaces parallel to Siskiyou is a concern by the Commission. Shostrom opened the public hearing to the applicants. Kimber Bishop, property owner, and Bob Carroll, architect, addressed the Commission regarding the project. Mr. Carroll spoke about the parking and said they could adjust the spaces and agrees that they don’t want to block the Historic home. There is a bay window detail that was left out of the renderings and they have no intention of touching anything that was left out of the details. All doors, sidelights, detailed shingles, and historic windows will remain. Mrs. Bishop stated that only herself and her husband will be living in the home and the extra living area would be for a caregiver. Mrs. Bishop spoke about the railing (under 2 ft) on the second story porch and would like to make it safer as it’s very rickety. They would like to extend the parapet wall to the corner and put the railing on top of the wall. By continuing the shake style wall, they can enhance the look from the road. Shostrom/Skibby m/s to continue PA-T1-2021-00145 until May’s meeting.Voice vote. ALL AYES. Motion passed. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PA-T1-2021-00145 TheHistoricCommissionrecommendscontinuing theapplication toallowtheapplicanttoaddressthe following items. TheHistoricCommissionappreciatesthe applicant’sexpressedintentionstopreservetheoriginalFrank C.Clarkhouse andlimitthedemolition andnewadditionstotherearofthestructure andpropertysothat theoriginalhistorichomeisnotmodifiedorobscured.However,theCommissionwasunabletodetermine theextentofthe proposedexterior modificationstotheindividuallylistedstructure ontheNational Register ofHistoricPlacesfromthe application materialsandwhether theproposed exterior modificationsare consistentwiththeapplicable designstandardsinAshlandMunicipalCode(AMC) 18.4.2.050.C.2 RehabilitationStandards. Theelevationsdonotclearlyshowthearchitecturalfeaturesofthe existing homethatwillbe retainedand modified.Submitdocumentation addressing the exterior architecturalfeatures that willberetained andthosethatwillbemodified onthe originalFrankC.Clarkhomein the form ofrevisedelevationsorphotosofeach sideofthebuilding withawrittennarrative. Submitaccurate,scaledelevationsofproposed frontentry/railing modificationsincluding drawingsoftheentry/railing as itexistscurrentlybeforechangesandalso after withthe proposedchanges.Showtherailing detail. AMC18.4.2.050.C.2.b.Originalarchitecturalfeaturesshallberestoredas muchas possible,whenthose featurescanbedocumented. Vinylwindowsshould notbeusedintheoriginalFrankC.Clarkhome.TheCommission recommendsrebuilding theoriginalwindowsanddoors,fabricating replacementwindowsand doorsto matchtheoriginalwindows,orusing newwoodwindowsanddoors. 3 AMC18.4.2.050.C.2.gReplacementwindowsinhistoricbuildingsshallmatch theoriginalwindows.Windowsinnewadditionsshallbecompatiblein proportion,shape andsizebut notreplicate originalwindowsin thehistoric building. Match four-inch exposure of existing siding with new siding. Consider 1/2-inch thick cement board siding on new rear addition so will match the depth of the exiting clapboard siding. AMC18.4.2.050.C.2.cReplacementfinishesonexterior wallsofhistoricbuildings shallmatchtheoriginalfinish.Exterior finishesonnewadditionstohistoric buildingsshallbecompatiblewith,butnotreplicate,thefinishofthehistoric building. Motor vehicleparkingnearthe frontofthe housedimensionsthehistoricstructure.Consider moving theparking totherearofthe propertyorreducing thesizeoftheproposedsecondunitto reducethe numberofrequiredoff-streetparking spaces. Consider using narrower windowswithaverticalorientation onnortheastelevationofnewaddition, similar tothe windowsontheoriginalFrankC.Clarkhome.Narrowerwindowscan begroupedin setsofthreetoprovidesimilar windowareaasmorecontemporarywider windows. AMC18.4.2.050.C.2.gReplacementwindowsinhistoricbuildingsshallmatchthe originalwindows.Windowsinnewadditionsshallbecompatibleinproportion, shape andsizebut notreplicate originalwindowsin thehistoricbuilding. Mrs. Bishop was brought back into the meeting and stated that she would comply with the continuance. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Historic Preservation Awards –May 20, 2021 @12PM via Zoom o Timeline for how things will run during awards ceremony. o The Commission decided that the Mayor will not be neededas part of the awards ceremony this year. o Swink will be out of town and would like someone to read his blurb for the awards presentation. Harris and Trapp will take a look and see which Commissioners are assigned and get back to him. o The awards and packets will be mailed out to the winners after the awards ceremony. o Trapp to email Shostrom regarding signing of the certificates. OLD BUSINESS: None to discuss ADJOURNMENT: Next meeting is scheduled May 5, 2021at6:00pmvia Zoom. There being no other items to discuss, the meeting adjournedat8:50pm Respectfully submitted by Regan Trapp 4 ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Planning Application Review April 7, 2021 PLANNING ACTION:PA-T1-2021-00145 SUBJECT PROPERTY:912 Siskiyou Blvd. APPLICANT/OWNER:Kimber Bishop DESCRIPTION:A request for Site Design Review approval for an exterior change to an individually listed historic structure on the Nation Register of Historic Places and for the addition of a second residential unit. The proposal includes a large addition to the rear of the structure for a new master suite, as well as the construction of a two car garage with a second dwelling above. The application includes a request to remove two trees; a 35” DBH Cedar, and a 10” DBH Japanese maple. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Multi-Family Residential;ZONING:R-2;ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 09DA;TAX LOT:6600 Recommendation: The Historic Commission recommends continuing the application to allow the applicant to address the following items. The Historic Commission appreciatesthe applicant’s expressed intentions to preserve the original Frank C. Clark houseand limit the demolition and new additions to the rear of the structure and property so that the original historic home is not modified or obscured. However, theCommission was unable to determine the extent of the proposed exterior modifications to the individually listed structure on the National Register of Historic Placesfrom the application materialsand whether the proposed exterior modifications are consistent with the applicable design standardsin Ashland Municipal Code(AMC)18.4.2.050.C.2 Rehabilitation Standards. The elevations do not clearly show the architectural features of the existing home that will be retained and modified. Submit documentation addressing the exterior architectural features that will be retained and those that will be modified onthe original Frank C. Clark home in the form of revised elevations or photos of each side of the building with a written narrative. Submit accurate, scaled elevations of proposed front entry/railing modifications including drawings of the entry/railing as it exists currently before changes and also after with the proposed changes.Show the railing detail. AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.b. Original architectural features shall be restored as much as possible, when those features can be documented. Vinyl windows should not be used in the original Frank C. Clark home. The Commission recommends rebuilding the original windows and doors, fabricating replacement windows and doors to match the original windows,or using new wood windows and doors. AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.g Replacement windows in historic buildings shall match the original windows. Windows in new additions shall be compatible in proportion, shape and size butnot replicate original windows in the historic building. 1 Match four-inch exposure of existing siding with new siding. Consider 1/2-inch thick cement board siding on new rear addition so will match the depth of the exiting clapboard siding. AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.c Replacement finishes on exterior walls of historic buildings shall match the original finish. Exterior finishes on new additions to historic buildings shall be compatible with, but not replicate, the finish of the historic building. Motor vehicle parkingnear the front of the house dimensions the historic structure. Consider moving the parking to the rear of the property or reducing the size of the proposed second unit to reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces. Consider using narrower windows with a vertical orientation on northeast elevation of new addition, similar to the windows on the original Frank C. Clark home. Narrower windows can be grouped in sets of three to provide similar window area as more contemporary wider windows. AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.g Replacement windows in historic buildings shall match the original windows. Windows in new additions shall be compatible in proportion, shape and size but not replicate original windows in the historic building. 2 5#!0!23# 5#!0!23# 5#!0!23# 5#!0!23# 29#!0!23# 29#!0!23# 5#!0!23# 7#!0!23# 29#!0!23#7#!0!23# 29#!0!23# 7#!0!23# T T Memo DATE: May 5, 2021 TO: Ashland Historic Commission FROM: Maria Harris, Planning Manager RE: Code amendments to meet state requirements for duplexes and accessory residential units Summary This is an informational and discussion item to update the Historic Commission on the proposed land use code amendments to meet new State rules regarding duplexes and accessory residential units (ARUs). The draft code amendments, meeting materials and reference materials are available on the project web page at www.ashland.or.us/duplexcode . Background In the 2019 legislative session, the Oregon State Legislature passed House Bill (HB) 2001 which local zoning codes to allow duplexes on residentially zoned lots that allow the development of detached single-family homes. A medium city is defined as with a population between 10,000 and 25,000 and outside the Portland Metro boundary. The 2020 population estimate for Ashland from Portland State University is 21,105. HB 2001 also includes a provision that prohibits jurisdictions from requiring off-street parking and owner-occupancy requirements for ARUs. HB 2001 requires medium cities to develop and adopt standards in compliance with the state requirements by June 30, 2021. HB 2001 became effective on August 8, 2019. A year later, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted Chapter 660 Division 46 Middle Housing in Medium and Large Cities. The administrative rules became effective on August 7, 2020 and outline requirements for medium cities for the land use review process and development standards for duplexes. HB 2001 says that cities may regulate the siting and design of duplexes as long as the regulations do not, individually or cumulatively, deter the development of duplexes through unreasonable cost and delay. The administrative rules clarify that siting and design standards that create unreasonable cost and delay include any standards applied to duplex development that are more restrictive than those applicable to detached single-family dwellings in the same zone. In Ashland, detached single-family homes are a permitted use and in most cases simply require a building permit. The exceptions are planning approvals required for exceeding the maximum permitted house size (MPFA) in the historic districts, exceptions for the solar setback, variances to dimensional, parking and access requirements, tree removal permits, and permits for construction in natural hazard Page 2 of 3 and resource areas such as hillside lands (25 percent slope and greater), floodplains, riparian areas and wetlands. Summary of Draft Code Amendments The primary changes to the City of Ashland land use code included in the draft code amendments are described below. Section 2: AMC 18.2.2.030 Allowed Uses (page 5 of 73) Duplexes become permitted with special use standards in 18.2.3.110 in all of the residential zones. As a result, a second unit is permitted on any residentially zoned lot where a detached single-family residence is allowed, as required by state law. Section 3: AMC 18.2.2.040 Accessory Residential Unit (page 13 of 73) ARUs are no longer required to obtain a separate planning application and approval, and instead can be constructed by obtaining a building permit. Section 5: AMC 18.2.3.110 Duplex (page 20 of 73) The duplex standards are revised to address the requirements in state law. Section 17: AMC 18.4.3.040 Parking Ratios (page 48 of 73) The parking requirements are amended to delete the parking requirements for ARUs and to add a parking requirement of two spaces for a duplex. State law prohibits local jurisdictions from requiring the installation of parking spaces on a property that adds an ARU, and specifies that the maximum that can be required for a duplex is two parking spaces per lot. Section 23: AMC 18.6.1.030 Definitions (page 71 of 73) The definition of a duplex is revised to two units on one lot in any configuration, in either attached or detached structures. The proposed definition of a duplex in the draft code amendments is from the State of Oregon Model Code for Medium Cities two units on one lot in any configuration including either in attached or detached structures. attached dwelling units on one lot, or as two units on a lot in any configuration (i.e., attached and detached structures). If Ashland were to use the definition of a duplex that is more limited, two attached units on one lot, the code in the current form would require a planning application and approval for a detached second unit. However, by state law, the City cannot require a separate planning application and approval process for a duplex but instead must allow the construction of a duplex by obtaining a building permit alone. The end result of defining a duplex as two attached units would be that two attached units on one lot would in most cases be allowed by obtaining a building permit. In contrast, two detached units on one lot would require first a planning application and approval, and then if the project was approved, a building permit for construction of the second detached unit. Staff believes the flexibility to define a duplex as two units on one lot in any configuration (i.e., attached or detached structures) has several advantages that are described below. As a result, staff has recommended to the Planning Commission that Ashland adopt the more flexible definition of a duplex. Creates equity in the approval process by having one process, timeline and permit costs that address all permits for two units on a lot whether there is one building or two buildings on the property. A planning application and approval adds time and application costs for the property owner. In addition, the required public noticing process for a planning application and the DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Page 3 of 3 possibility of a public hearing request by a neighbor will deter some property owners from pursuing detached units. A planning application process can also create neighborhood housing. Provides more design flexibility to tailor the unit configuration to best suit an individual property. Common design issues are tree preservation, creating or preserving yard space and physical constraints such as steep slopes and riparian areas. If a planning approval process is retained for detached units but not for attached units, it may create a disincentive and discourage a better design using a detached structure. Different processes may also result in unusual attached designs to avoid the added planning process and additional fees. Removes barriers to housing production of rental units and therefore, addresses adopted housing policy and housing needs analysis to address low vacancy rates, variety of housing types and housing costs. Enhances customer service and efficiency in administration of the land use code. One approval process for two units on one lot whether there is one building or two buildings will require less staff time than having to explain two different processes, timelines and related fees. Next Steps HB 2001 requires medium cities such as Ashland to develop and adopt standards in compliance with the state requirements by June 30, 2021. The schedule includes a public hearing and recommendation at the Planning Commission on May 11, 2021. The duplex code amendments are scheduled for a study session at the City Council on May 17, 2021, a public hearing and first reading at the City Council on June 1, 2021, and second reading on June 15, 2021. DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us