Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-03 Historic PACKET HISTORIC COMMISSIONELECTRONICMEETING AGENDA March 3, 2021 6PM I.6:00PM -REGULAR MEETING – CALL TO ORDER II.APPROVAL OF MINUTES Historic Commission electronic meeting of February 3,2021. III.PUBLIC FORUM IV.COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT Councilor Moran V.PLANNING ACTION REVIEW PLANNING ACTION:PA-T-2021-00027 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 VI.DISCUSSION ITEMS Historic Preservation Awards – May 20, 2021 @12PM via Zoom Commission Vacancies and Membership VII.OLD BUSINESS None VIII.ADJOURNMENT ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION ELECTRONIC MEETING DRAFT Meeting Minutes February 3, 2021 Community Development/Engineering Services Building –Electronic Meeting CALL TO ORDER: Shostromcalled the electronic meeting to order at6:05pm. Commissioners Present:Council Liaison: SkibbyShaun Moran WhitfordStaff Present: ShostromMaria Harris; Planning Dept. Von ChamierRegan Trapp; Secretary Hovenkamp Emery Swink Commissioners Absent:Giordano APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Hovenkamp/Whitford m/sto approve minutesfor January 6, 2021.Voice vote. ALL AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM: There was no one wishing to speak. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: City Council LiaisonShaunMoran introduced himself to the Commission and stated that he is eager to learn about all aspects of the Historic Commission. PLANNING ACTION REVIEW: None NEW ITEMS: Historic Preservation Awards –May 2021 The zoom awards arescheduled for May 20, 2021 with times TBD. Trapp went over list of “to do’s”for the Commission and there wasdiscussion on how the awards will be handled. It was suggested having each recipient speak for a few minutes on Historic Preservation or their projects in general. Trapp discussed mailing out certificatesand packetsearly so that the recipients have them for the ceremony. The Commission would like to have a “run-through” of the ceremony in early May. Skibbywillemailhistoric photos of the properties if they are availableand was given a deadline of April 1, 2021 to email photosof the projectsto Trapp. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Von Chamier brought up the sale of the” Oak Street Tank and Steel”building and wanted to know what the process would be if the Commissionwanted to weigh in on what is possible with the propertysince there is no review board at this time.Harris stated that the applicants shouldstartwith the City of Ashland Planning Departmentto get on the Agenda for the Historic Commission Meeting. REVIEW BOARD: Postponed until further notice. PROJECT ASSIGNMENTS FOR PLANNING ACTIONS: Will update when more information is given. ADJOURNMENT: Next meeting is scheduled March 3, 2021at 6:00pmvia Zoom. There being no otheritems to discuss, the meeting adjournedat6:52pm Respectfully submitted by Regan Trapp Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 1-800-735-2900 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us PLANNING ACTION:PA-T2-2021-00027 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 use as office space with occasional assembly uses (convention, trade show, etc.) and adding a new entry. The application also includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit as it involves the expansion of an existing non-conforming development where no off-street parking is available, and Tree Removal Permits to remove a six-inch DBH Cedar tree on the east side of the structure, and two CalleryPear street trees (10.2-inch DBH & 12.7-inch DBH) in the park row planting strip along East Main Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; MAP: 39 1E 09AC;TAX LOT #: 760 0 ELECTRONIC HISTORIC COMMISSION MEETING:Wednesday, March 3, 2021at 6:00 P.M. ELECTRONIC TREE COMMISSION MEETING: Thursday, March 4, 2021 at 6:00 P.M. G:\\comm-dev\\Commissions & Committees\\Historic Commission\\Packets\\2021 Packets\\3-3-2021\\EMain_599\\EMain_599_Coversheet.docx SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS(AMC 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. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (AMC 18.5.4.050.A) A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 1.That the use would be in conformance with allstandards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2.That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3.That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be consideredin relation to the target use of the zone. a.Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b.Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets.Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. c.Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d.Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e.Generation of noise, light, and glare. f.The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g.Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authorityfor review of the proposed use. 4.A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5.For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows. d.C-1.The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter18.2.2Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. G:\\comm-dev\\Commissions & Committees\\Historic Commission\\Packets\\2021 Packets\\3-3-2021\\EMain_599\\EMain_599_Coversheet.docx TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (AMC 18.5.7.040.B) 1.Hazard Tree.A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a.The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likelyto fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part18.6. b.The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall bea condition of approval of the permit. 2.Tree That is Not a Hazard.A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a.The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part18.4and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. b.Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. c.Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d.Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e.The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. G:\\comm-dev\\Commissions & Committees\\Historic Commission\\Packets\\2021 Packets\\3-3-2021\\EMain_599\\EMain_599_Coversheet.docx Magnolia Fine Homes 599 EAST MAIN STREET Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for the non-conforming site Received 1.21.2021 January19, 2021 Site Design Review andConditional Use Permit Review For Exterior Modifications to a Non-Contributing Historic Structure Property Owner: Livni Family Trust 453 Tucker Street Ashland, OR 97520 Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Amy Gunter 1314-B Center Dr., PMB 457 Medford, OR 97501 Architect: Ron Grimes Architecture 14 N Central Ave. Suite 106 Medford, OR 97501 Subject Property Property Address: 599 East Main Street Map & Tax Lot: 39 1E 09AC; Tax lot 7600 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial Zoning: C-1 Adjacent Zones: C-1, R-2 Railroad Historic District Request: Request for Site Design Review to modify the exterior of the historic, non-contributing structure at the northeast corner ofEastMain Street andFifth Street. A new entry addition to the East Main and Fifth Street façade of the structure is proposed. This new entry is to provide a common atrium-like entry area for the modernized former church structure. The proposal is to convert the space into a modern office building that includes an approximately 1,900 square foot assembly or group space that is part of the office uses within the structure. The purpose is to not intensify the recognized use of the sanctuary portion of the structure as assembly/group occupancy with office portions that operated during ‘typical’office hours during the week and held larger ‘events’ every Sunday and often Friday and Saturday (weddings, funerals, community events, etc.) with Page 1 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 weekly community meeting times and larger group events throughout the calendar year. Based on the photographic evidence provided by the previous occupants, there were between 224-244 seats in the sanctuary area. There is approximatly 750 square feet of office on the second floor and approximately 1,980 square feet of office space in the daylight basement. The primary focus of the proposal the substantial alterations the exterior of the structure to remove an unsightly and poorly constructed addition and materials, with the addition of a pedestrian oriented entry area. Additionally, there are substantial interior changes and structural modifications to the building are necessary and allow for the use of the assembly occupancy space as a lower intensity office space that may have assembly type events on occasion. The proposed interior improvements to fire, life, and safety with the installation of a fire suppression system, improvements to the restrooms to provide accessibility and function, and through the installation of energy efficiency upgrades to the HVAC and electrical systems, the higher intensity occupancy of the assembly rating should be allowed to remain. The existing site development site does not currently comply with several applicable site development standards including parking requirements. The addition of the pedestrian-oriented entry area is considered an expansion of a site that does not comply with the standards; thus, the construction also necessitates a Conditional Use Permit. The use of the site as general office and assembly is the same intensity or less occupancy than the church's occupancy rating thus not triggering a variance to parking as none exists and the proposal does not alter this. Property Description: The subject property is to the northeast of the East Main and Fifth Street intersections. The property isthe southern portion of Lots 8 and 9, Block R, of the Railroad Addition Subdivision, recorded in February 1884. According to the deed, in 1952, the property was divided in 1952. The existing property is approximately 50-feet by 74-feet, 3,484 square feet in area (.08 AC). The property is occupied by an approximately 4,628square foot church sanctuary building that was constructed in the early 1900s. The building appears on the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps between the 1907 and 1911 mapping period. According to the City of Ashland Historic Resources Inventory, the structure is considered historic due to its age, but non-conforming due to its condition. The structure has an approximately 1,892 square foot main floor chapel area, a 1,980 square foot daylight basement area that has pre-school and Sunday schoolclassrooms and office spaces. The second floor consists of 756 square feet of offices and storage areas. Page 2 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 The building has solid, double entry doors that are up a series of steps from the East Main and Fifth Street frontages. The stairs lead to a dark, un-welcoming entry area. Based on the information available, the structure was resided and “modernized” in the 1980s. The property is zoned Commercial (C-1). The adjacent properties to the north, east, and west that abuts East Main Street are also zoned C-1. The properties furthernorth across the public alley, and diagonally across Fifth Street are zoned Low-Density Residential (R-2). The subject property and the adjacent properties are also within the Railroad Historic District. According to the historic resources inventory, the structure is historic due to its age, but in its present state is considered non-conforming. East Main Street isconsidered an Avenue on theCity ofAshlandTransportation System Analysis. There are bike lanes present on East Main Street. There are a five-foot landscape park row and a five-foot- wide concrete sidewalk. There are two Callery Pears in the park row. Fifth Street abuts the west property line. Fifth Street has a 70-foot-wide right-of-way. Fifth Street is improved with a five-foot sidewalk, landscape Park Row, curb, gutter, and wide vehicle travel lanes. There are two royal red maple street trees in the landscape park row. Proposal: The request is for SiteDesign Review to allow for the renovation of the former church sanctuary building to rehabilitate the structure and to modify the building into a commercialbusiness office suite structure. A major front façade renovation that retains similar mass, scale, and architectural lines but modernizes and improves the orientation of the existing structure is proposed. The proposed modifications to the structure seek to make dramatic improvements to the function of the structurethoughlayoutchanges,installationofcodestandardstairwaysandADAupgrades,energy efficiency improvements, the addition of fire sprinkler system, removal of a dilapidated portionofthe structure at the rear (north side) and drastic modifications to the façade that improve the orientation of the structure to the street, and compliance with the historic district design standards to allow the adaptive reuse of the commercial property. As noted above, it’s important to the prospective tenant that the property retain its existing assembly occupancy rating. The existing site development does not provide vehicle parking, bicycle parking, pedestrian orientation to the public street, nor a screened refuse area. The proposed site improvements of the non-conforming site bring it closer to conformance through the exterior improvements, installation of bicycle parking and a screened trash/recycle refuse area, but does not alter the lack of on-site vehicle parking. There is Page 3 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 nolocation or access tomodify thisnon-conformity and a Conditional UsePermit is requested to retain the non-conforming parking condition. The existing structure exterior consists of a press-board material, lap sidingwith8" exposure.The building has a barrel roof that is behind the parapet of the façade. Theinterior of the sanctuary building includes exposed bowstring trusses. On the existing other façade treatments include 1” X 8” corner boards. The window trim includes a 1” X 4” side and bottom trim and 1” X 6” top trim. On the main floor, large windows with sandwich divided lights are present. The daylight basement windows are side by side sliding windows. The exposed wall of the daylight basement and entry stair is smooth finished cement or stucco. The proposal includes extending the entryway toward the corner of Fifth and East Main Streetby installing a commercial storefront entry area that is atrium like.Theproposed atrium entrythat encloses the front stair area with a brick base and large glass windows. New, aluminum frame, commercial entry doors oriented towards the Fifth and East Main Street intersection are proposed. There is a covered entry area marquee awning proposed that provides a covered entry area. A red brick base with a water table is proposed to replace the smooth cement skim/stuccofinish that existsaroundthebaseofthestructure.Horizontallapsidingisproposedonthestructurewith a smooth stuccotypefinishonthefront‘tower’feature.Theexistingstairwelltothesecondstoryisaccessedfrom the single door that faces Fifth Street, the "tower" element will have windows added and a newstairway leadingup the second-floor offices. New windows will feature divided lights tomatchthe existing window pattern found on the ground floor. There are smaller, double-hung windows on the secondfloor that are visible to East Main Street, this shape, style, and pattern will be maintained. The existing use of 599 E Main Street as a churchsanctuary,including administrative offices, a pre-school, communitymeetingspace,event space, and community gathering space,in the main sanctuary building requiredmorethan 60 parking spaces. This number of parkingspaceswas determined basedonphotos of the interior of the space, and the uses of the space according to the previous owners. The sanctuary space photos provided by the church show 224 - 244 seats. There were 16 rows of 7 chairs and an additional circle of 20-chairs. A space with 224 seats would require at least 56 parking spaces. The office space in the basement and the second floor would have required an additionalfiveparking spaces.Duetothesheer numberof spaces required with these two uses, the additional parking spaces generated with the use of the pre-school area as a pre-K/daycare during the week were not added. The existing use of the property requires 61 parking spaces, and none are provided on-site. The proposed use of the site as assembly and general office space will not increase parking demand beyond the current required number of parking spaces and is considered a decrease in occupancy. Two treeswill be removed. One is a six-inchDBH One is a cedar tree that is on the east side of the structure and growing immediately adjacenttothe building on the subject property and is immediately adjacent to the structure to the east. The tree has no room for future growth and is on the prohibited plant list. The othertreeproposed for removal is a street tree removal request to remove a Callery Pear Page 4 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 tree from the park row on the East Main Street frontage.This tree has poor canopy growth and is in a generally poor condition when considering it is nearly 30 years old but has not grown vigorously. Findings of fact addressing the criteria fromthe AshlandMunicipalCode is found on thefollowingpages. Page 5 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 CriteriafromtheAshlandLandUseOrdinance Nonconforming Uses and Developments 18.1.4.020 The subject property at 599 E Main Street is noted as a church since at least the 1911 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map publication (see attachments). The 4,628 square foot, two-story with daylight basement. The structure has been in the same location and generally the same shape, orientation, scale, and massing since the earliest photos from the 1970s. There is limited information in the public record of what the church exterior looked like before the 1970s. The existing site development occurred before the creation of the land use ordinance. The non-conforming development is not increasing with the proposal, site development standards such as orientation and bicycle parking will be provided thus increasing conformity. On-site parking has never been provided in conjunction with the development of the site and the proposed use of the structure as an office suite with assembly space will not provide parking. This is not an increase in the non-conforming situation of the site. The proposal is not to alter or eliminate the recognized assembly occupancy but to retain it which allows for by the tenants. he proposal seeks to make substantial exterior modifications to improve the form and function of the T structure, but not to reduce the occupancy. The proposal seeks to allow for the development of modernized office space in conjunction with the existing occupancy, but not to reduce the occupancy of the structure. The structure is considered a historic, non-contributing structure according to the Historic Resources Assessment of the Railroad Historic District. Exterior modifications to Historic Contributing Structures require Site Design Review. No expansions, enlargements, or changes of use are proposed with the application. The proposal seekstorehabilitate the structure and to modify the front façade by installing a new commercialstorestyle entry with double front doors at the grade of the public sidewalk.New horizontal, lap siding, and new windows are also proposed to be added. The FifthStreet façade willremain generally as iswithnew siding and replacing the smooth cementfinishwith a redbrick façade treatment. The existing windows on the east and westelevations are proposed to be retained. These windows are large, with sandwiched divided light. New windows tomatch the size, shape, and style of the existingmain floor window styles are proposed on the EastMain facing 'tower'elementwhere the stairwell up to the second floor will be reconstructed. The upper floor window openings are proposed to remain. Page 6 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 SiteDevelopmentDesignStandardsApprovalCriteria: 18.5.2.050 Approval Criteria An application for Site Design Review shall be approved if the proposal meets the criteria in subsections A, B, C, and D below. 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. Finding: The 3,484 square foot property is commercially zoned and is nearly completely covered by the existing structure, whichis non-conforming development. The C-1 zoned does not have setbacks required excepting for landscape area, parking, buffering, or building code requirements. The existing 4,682 square foot structure is at or near the property lines. The proposed addition to the entry area in the southeast portion of the structure extends to the property lines. The overhangs of the coveredentry extend to the property lines. The entry door is slightly recessed to provide adequate area for ramping. The new entry area substantially increases orientation to the public street. There is a portion of the structure that was added at some point that is poorly connected on the north side of the structure. This addition is reached via the stairs in the courtyard between the two properties or from within the structure. The addition is at the second story on the Fifth Street side due to the grade change of the property. Placing the structure's post adjacent to the sidewalk and the floor above forehead height. The removal of this 221 square foot structure and the 55 square feet of stair and landing area will not have substantial alterations on the structure's orientation to the street and is diminimis is the amount of parking required for that portion of the building. The removal of the addition improves the orientation of this side of the structure to Fifth Street and removes a poorly design and poorly constructed, non-historic addition. A new metal stair and landing will be provided to provide egress from the second story. The property is in the detailed site review zone and developments are subject to a Floor Area Ratio standard of .5. The property exceeds, the required FAR of 1,742 square feet, with more than 4,600 square feet of building on the 3,484 square foot parcel. The site covers more than 85 percent of the site with impervious surfaces. The proposal removes an area of structure but does not reduce or increase the existing impervious areas. The existing use of 599 E Main Street as a church sanctuary, including administrative offices, a pre- school, community meeting space, event space, and community gathering space, in the main sanctuary building required more than 60 parking spaces. This number of parking spaces was determined based on photos of the interior of the space, and the uses of the space according to the previous owners. The sanctuary space photos provided by the church show 224 - 244 seats. There were 16 rows of 7 chairs and an additional circle of 20-chairs. A space with 224 seats would require at least 56 parking spaces. Page 7 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 The office space in the basement and the second floor would have required an additional five parking spaces. Due to the sheer number of spaces required with these two uses, the additional parking spaces generated with the use of the pre-school area as a pre-K/daycare during the week were not added. The existing use of the property requires 61 parking spaces, and none are provided on-site. The proposed use of the site as assembly and general office space will not increase parking demand beyond the current required number of parking spaces and is considered a decrease in occupancy. There are two on-street parking spaces present along the frontage of the property. Due to the lack of on- site parking, and that there is no way to perform a parking study to demonstrate how the use of the on- street parking spaces is justified thus no further discussion on parking is presented. No on-site parking is present, thus the request for the conditional use permit to not have on-site parking is requested. There is no area or access for parking and the circumstances necessitating the conditional use permit are not able to be remedied through the installation of parking or creation of an off-site parking agreement as there are no parking lotswithin 200-feet that would meet those standards. verlay Zones. Theproposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part B. O 18.3). Finding: The property is subject to the Historic District Standards for exterior additions. As evidenced in the findings below it can be found that the proposed development complies with the historic site development standards and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the rehabilitation of the historic, non- contributing structure located at 599 East Main Street. 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. 18.4.2.040 Non-Residential Development Finding: The use of thesite is non-residential in the Commercial zone. The proposed exterior modifications will have a positive impact on the streetscape B. Basic Site Review Standards. 1. Orientation and Scale. Finding: The existing structure has a door the facesFifth Street and a set of double doors that face East Main Street. The proposed construction of a coveredentry including glazing and a sidewalk accessible double entry doorway provides a greater orientation to the street than the existing structure presents. The proposed entry addition to the front of the building orients the structureto Page 8 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 the street and the intersection of the two public streets provides direct access from the public sidewalk. The entry doors are proposed to be clearly visible, and the addition of glazing, brick, and horizontal siding provides for substantial changes in materials that emphasize the commercial business entrance. The addition provides less than a 20-foot setback and the entrance is as close to the property line as practicable while allowing ramping for access. The existing structure occupies the majority of the facades. There are no on-site parking or vehicle access areas. 2. Streetscape. Finding: The Fifth Street streetscape is not proposed to be altered. There are two Callery Pear trees in the landscape park row on East Main Street. Both are in fair condition and the proximity of the one closest to the intersection violates the spacing standards. This street treeis proposed for removal. A street tree removal permit has been requested. 3. Landscaping. Finding: The landscaping is pre-existing. There is a narrow, at grade planter along the Fifth Street façade that will have a ground cover installed post-construction. The remainder of the landscape area along the east property line is a “natural state” and is not proposed to be altered. 4. Designated Creek Protection. Finding: Not applicable 5.NoiseandGlare. Finding: Additional light and glare beyond what is standard in the commercial zone are not anticipated. The proposed uses are not substantially noisy beyond typical commercial-zoned uses. New HVAC equipment will improve the noise generated by the existing equipment. New exterior lighting and any newartificial lighting will comply with the standards of 18.4.4.050. Page 9 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 6.Expansion of Existing Sites and Buildings. Finding: The existingsiteis non-conforming in that it does not have any on-site vehicle or bicycle parking. A poorly constructed addition is present on the north side of the structure that is causing damage between the roof of the structure and the north wall of the original historic footprint. There is 221 square feet of building area to be removed, the stair and the landing accessing this space is 55- square-foot portion of the structure is proposed to be removed. The proposed addition to the front of the building is 220 square feet. This consists of atrium entry by enclosing the existingstair and landing and creating an at grade pedestrian entrance. The footprint of the structure is proposed to be decreased by one square feet. Thus no expansion of the non-conforming site improvements. The square footage of the building area removed and reconstructed does modify the parking demands. Most of the site for the purposes of site development standards will remain in a non-conforming status due to the lack of property area that is not covered by structure. The proposal provides for 12 required bicycle parking spaces. These are provided in a U rack at the front of the building between the building and the street. At the rear of the property in the area of the removed portion of the structure, two additional U racks will be installed. The remaining two secure bicycle parking spaces will be provided within the building. These spaces will be provided in the entry area of the basement level office space. The site location, lot size, structure location, setbacks,coverage, landscape areas, lack of vehicle parking area are non-conforming and through the approval of the addition along the front of the structure will not increase the non-conformity. There is no lot area to install any parking, the existing lot coverage is retained and not to be enlarged leaving the site development area and impacts the same as they have been since at least the early 1900s. C. Detailed Site Review Standards. Finding: The subject property is within the DetailedSite Review Standards overlay. The property is in the Detail Site Review Overlay Zone and developments are subject to a Floor Area Ratio standard of .5 of the site area. The property exceeds FAR of 1,742 square feet as there is more than 4,600 square feet of building on a 3,484 square foot parcel. None of the building frontages are greater than 100 feet in length. There ismore than 20 percent of the wall area facing the street as windows and doorways. There are no blank walls. There are substantial changes in relief on the surface of the existing building. The proposal improves these with an improvement in material choices and quality. Additionally, changes in Page 10 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 relief and fenestration are provided through the introduction of a red brick base with a water table toreplace the smooth cement finish that exists around the base of the structure. Horizontal lap siding is proposed on the structure with a smooth stucco type finish on the front 'tower' feature. The existing stairwell to the secondstoryis accessed from the single door that faces Fifth Street, the "tower" elementwill have windows added and the stairway leading up the second-floor offices will be constructed within this architectural element. New windows will feature divided lights to match the existing window pattern found on the ground floor. There are smaller, double-hung windows on the second floor that are visible to East Main Street, this shape, style, and pattern will be maintained. A new roof extension to provide pedestrian coverage from the rain and sun at the entry area is proposed. D. Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects. Finding: The proposed building is less than 10,000 square feetin gross floor area and does not have more than 100-feet of frontage. It is not considered a Large-Scale Building. 18.4.2.050 Historic District Development Finding: The property is locatedwithin the Railroad HistoricDistrict. The proposal is to rehabilitate the exterior of a historic, but non-contributing structure in a manner that retains the form and the shape of the existing structure. The proposed alterations will have a positive impact on the scale,form, and mass. It can be found that the proposed exterior alterations are architecturally compatible with the historic district design standards for a renovated commercial structure. The proposal seeks to modify the front façade by installing a new atrium-style entry area with aluminum and glass, commercial storefront doors. The existing windows on the east and facades are proposed to be retained. New windows of similar size, shape, and style (divided light) as the existing main level windows are proposed. The standards speak to a comparison of historic buildings in the vicinity. In the case of the subject property, the existing structure is commercial and appears commercialin form, setbacks,site coverage, and functions. The immediatelyadjacent properties though zoned commercial have the residential type of structures present, making comparison irrelevant to the proposal. More relevantis to comply with the Historic District Design Standards and depicts an accurate restoration of original architectural features on historic buildings. The proposal is most consistent Page 11 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 with what is known about the architectural features of the structure.There is no evidence that the structure's material façade treatments (or construction method) were anything other than the existing siding material and concrete or smooth stucco base. The applicant believes it can be found that the standards are met with the proposed replacement exterior façade materials. B.Historic District Design Standards. 1.Transitional Areas. Finding: The property is in the commercial zone and is the mostcommercial like structure. The adjacent commercial properties are occupied by residential type of construction. Some of the uses are commercial but the structures are residential in form. It can be found that the exterior modifications incorporate several of the historicdistrict design standard objectives such as a sense of entry, a rhythm of openings, and compatible materials. The proposed restoration of the non-contributing, historic structure is consistent with the standards from the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic District 2. Height. Finding: No modifications to the height. 3.Scale. Finding: The scale of the property is not impacted by the proposed exterior modifications. The mass and scale of the structure are proposed to be altered through the removal of a poorly constructed addition at the rear of the building and the addition of a newentry atrium areawith double storefront style entry doors. 4. Massing. Finding: The massing of the structure is not alteredwiththe proposal. The existing exterior treatments provide vertical and historical rhythms. The continued use of horizontal siding is consistent with the historical finish of the structure and the new glazing for the entry and the new windows provides verticalelements to the design. The existing structure is monolithic in its massing a scale. The proposed modifications alter the mass of the ‘tower’ element into smaller, more varied masses. Page 12 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 5.Setback. Finding: The proposed addition at the front of the building continues the same plan as the existing building's historic building plane. 6. Roof. Finding: The roof is screened behind the parapet walls. No changes to the shape, pitch, or materials are proposed. 7.Rhythm ofOpenings. Finding: The proposed addition of a commercial-style entrance provides an additional opening but does not negatively detract from the existing pattern and rhythm of openings. The new windows within the 'tower' element are proposed as the same shape, opening size, materials and form, and the existing historic window pattern on the east and west building facades. 8. Base or Platforms. Finding: The existing structure has a daylight basement that provides a substantial base around the structure. This base is proposed to be resurfaced with a red brick treatment. This will provide a clear definition and a sense of platform for the structure. 9.Form. Finding: The form of the structure is commercial in shape, setback, coverage, more so than adjacent properties. The proposed entry addition will not negatively alter the form. 10. Entrances. Finding; A well-defined, articulated primary entrance is provided into the structure on the Fifth and East Main Street intersection with the atrium entry feature addition. Page 13 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 11.ImitationofHistoricFeatures. Finding: The building modifications and proposed exterior design is consistent withthis standard. The proposed exterior elevations are similar to the known, historical exterior elevation treatments and are in keeping with those materials. The proposed entry enhancements are contemporary in design and the design will enhance the commercial structure. New windows are proposed to be similar in shape, area, size of openings, and they will also be divided light windows. 12.Additions: Finding: The proposed addition is to enhance the primary façade and to be visually prominent. The historic district design standards seek preservation of historic contributing structures, sincethis structure is non-contributing, the preservation of its historic character is unnecessary. 13. Garage: Finding: Not applicable. C.Rehabilitation Standards for Existing Buildings and Additions. 2.RehabilitationStandards. Inaddition to the standards of part 18.4, the approval authorityuses the following standards forexisting buildingsand additionswithin the Historic District Overlay. These standards apply primarily toresidential historic districts, residential buildings in the Downtown Historic District, and National Register-listed historic buildingsnotlocated within theHistoricDistrict Overlay. The purpose of the following standards is to prevent incompatible treatment of buildings in the Historic DistrictOverlay and to ensure that new additions and materials maintain thehistoric and architectural characterof thedistrict. Finding: The proposed exterior modifications are proposed to a non-contributing structure that is within the historic district overlay. The standards would seek generally to retain the important materials, orientation, scale, and massing in context with the existing historically significant structure. The existing structure is not historically significant and lacks characteristics that would be indicative of pre-war, construction techniques, styles, materials, or character. Page 14 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 The findings address how the proposed exterior modifications are vast improvements to a historic, non-contributing, commercially zoned, high occupancy rated structure. a. Historic architectural styles and associated features shall not be replicatedin new additions or associated buildings. Finding: Not applicable, no additions proposed. b.Original architectural features shallbe restored as much as possiblewhen those features can be documented. Finding: The structure lacks evidence of original architecture. The only known photos of the exterior are of the 1980s renovation. The window size, dimensional ratio, sandwiched divided light panes in the main level, and side by side sliders in the basement level is proposed to be retained. c.Replacementfinishesonexteriorwallsofhistoricbuildings shallmatchthe originalfinish.Exteriorfinishesonnewadditionstohistoricbuildingsshallbe compatiblewith,butnotreplicate,thefinishofthehistoricbuilding. Finding: The existing siding on the majority of the structure's façade is a press-board, horizontal lap siding. The proposal is to replace the siding with a hardi-board horizontal lap siding. The smooth-coatedcement foundation is proposed to be overlayed with red brick. The front "tower" element is proposed to have a smooth coat stucco finish. d.Diagonaland vertical sidingshall be avoided onnew additionsoron historic buildings except inthoseinstances where it was used as the original siding. Finding: No vertical siding is proposed. e.Exterior wall colors onnew additions shall match those of the historic building. Finding: Page 15 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 The existing paint colors were beige and mauve. The proposed paint scheme for the exterior includes a dark grey and black trim with natural wood accents. f. Imitative materials including but not limited to asphalt siding, wood textured aluminum siding, and artificial stone shall be avoided. Finding: The proposal includes a redbrick façade treatment. 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. Finding: The proposed new windows are compatible in proportion, shape, and sizewith the original windows in the historic portion of the building. All the new windows are proposed to include the 'sandwiched' divided lights as is present in the historic window pattern. h.Reconstructed roofsonhistoricbuildingsshallmatchthepitchandformofthe originalroof.Roofsonnewadditionsshallmatchthepitchandformofthehistoric building,andshallbeattachedat a differentheightsotheadditioncanbe differentiatedfromthehistoricbuilding.Shedroofsareacceptableforone-story rearadditions. Finding: Not applicable i.Asphaltor composition shingle roofs are preferred. Asphalt shingles thatmatch theoriginalroof material in colorand texture are acceptable. Wood shake, wood- shingle, tile, and metal roofsshall be avoided. Finding: The roof is not visible from the ground or adjacent properties. j.Newporches or entries shall be compatible with, but not replicate, the historic character of the building. Finding: Page 16 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 The newentry area is compatible with the historic character of the building and uses glazing with divisions that reflect the rhythm of the divided lights in the windows of the main sanctuary space whichreflects the historic opening shape and locations. k. New detached buildings shall becompatible with the associated historic building and shall conformto theabove standards. Finding: Not applicable l.The latest version oftheSecretary of the Interior’sStandards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings shall be used in clarifying and determining whether the above standards are met. Finding: The proposal is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines. The original form of the structure is retained, the original cornerelement at the intersection of East Main and Fifth Street is enhanced, and the tower elements are retained. The proposal retains distinctive features (corner orientation, barrel roof behind the façade and the tower type element); retains the finishes (stucco and horizontal siding, divided light windows); and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the structure. 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. Finding: There are adequate public facilities that service the property. The water meter is present on Fifth Street. The Sanitary sewer is in Fifth Street. A stormwater sewer line is present in Fifth Street. No changes to the property that would impact the public facilities are proposed. Both East Main Street and Fifth Streets are public streetsimproved with curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drain, landscape park row, and street trees.One Callery Pear in the EastMain Street park row is proposed for removal. A street tree removal permit has been requested. Page 17 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 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, 2, or 3, below, are found to exist. Finding: No exceptions are requested. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL CRITERIA 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive planpoliciesthat are not implementedbyanyCity,State,orFederallaworprogram. Finding: The sitedevelopment is non-conforming with no provisions for on-site parking. The use isto retain the occupancy rating of the religious institution/assembly occupancy and the use of the space for an incoming office tenant. The use of the property as an office is permitted use the in the zone. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. Finding: There are adequate publicfacilities that service the property. The water meter is present on Fifth Street. The Sanitary sewer is in Fifth Street. A stormwater sewer line is present in Fifth Street. No changes to the property that would impact the public facilities are proposed. Both East Main Street and Fifth Streets are public streetsimproved with curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drain, landscape park row, and street trees.One Callery Pear in the EastMain Street park row is proposed for removal. A streettreeremovalpermit has beenrequested. 3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. Finding: The use of commercial property as a commercial use in the zone will not have a greater adverse effect on the livability of the immediate impact area which is primarily commercially zoned. The target use of the Page 18 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 zone for the site is a 1,742 square foot office building. Anofficestructure of 1,742 would require 3.48 or four (4) parking spaces. The proposal is to retain the existing structure and the existing occupancy rating would require 61 parking spaces based on the number of seats within the sanctuary space where no on-site parking spaces are provided. The existing structureis 4,620 square feet in area. The portion of the building that was used as assembly occupancy is just over 1,800 square feet of the building as seated assembly occupancy (1 sq. per 15 sq. foot floor area) an occupancy of approximately 126 persons is permitted per building code requirements. An occupancy of 126 which would require 31 parking spaces. In the event that the entire structure is office space, the structure requires 9.24 or 10 parking spaces. The property has 74-feet of frontage on Fifth Street,afterremoving 20-feet from frontage, thereis 54-feet remaining. This 54-feet could provide two on-street parking credits.In no casecan the required number of parking spaces for any use, not even a residential use could be on the property without the granting of the conditional use permitto continue the non-conforming development of the commercially zoned site. y in scale, bulk, and coverage. a. Similarit Finding: The proposal is to make small addition to a non-contributing structure on a lot that has a non- conforming development. The scale of the addition is minor in comparison to the area of the structure but will greatly improve the orientation to the public street. The proposal does not increase the bulk, or coverage of the site. b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increasesin pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. Finding: The generation of traffic and the effects on the surrounding streets by the use of the property as a permitted use or conditional use (assembly occupancy retention) will not have a greater impact than a busy church with Sunday service, community events throughout the week and church business office hours during the weekdays. The proposal includes the installation of bicycle parking facilities. This is to encourage bicycle ridership. The proposed pedestrian entrance enhancements encourage walking. c.Architecturalcompatibilitywiththeimpactarea. Finding: Page 19 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 The proposed exterior additions are architecturally compatible with the historic interest area. The majority of the nearby properties are occupied by residential style, commercially zoned structures and the subject property is the only commercial type in the impact area. d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. Finding: The proposed modification to the structure and the continued use of the property for commercial activities, will not generate additional air quality issues, dust, odors or other environmental pollutants. e. Generation of noise, light, and glare. Finding: The proposed renovations to the structure are proposed to retain the assembly space and general office space will not generate noise, light, or glare beyond what is expected in a commercially designated zone. There are no immediately adjacent residential properties that would be impacted by the use of commercial tenant space. f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The proposed addition of a pedestrian-oriented entrance on the commercial building and removal of a portion of the poorly constructed structure and substantial upgrades to the commercial building will not prevent adjacent commercial properties from developing as envisioned in the comprehensive plan. g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. Finding: Unknown what other factors will be relevant. 4. A conditionaluse permit shall not allow a usethat is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. Finding: The use of the commercial property as office space with assembly space is a permitted use in the zone. 5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows. Page 20 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 f. E-1.The general office uses listed in chapter18.2.2 BaseZones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. Finding: The floor area of the property if developed as new construction would 1,742 square feet of building and pedestrian area. A general office building of 1,742 would require 3.48 or four (4) parking spaces. Page 21 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 Historic Resources Inventory National Register of Historic Places Figure 1: Sanborn Fire Insurance Map 1911 Page 22 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 Figure 2: Sanborn Fire Insurance Map 1928 Page 23 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 Page 24 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 Page 25 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 Page 26 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 Page 27 of 27 Received 1.21.2021 "A 8E 4R A X " . R 0 3L C . N I M "A 8" 8E 4A4 R XEXA "R . 0" A0R 3. L 3 RC L. CN . I N M I M OFFICE BUILDING SANCTUARY Owner Last Name KenCairnRinaldi Fullerton-Wright 9/3/2019 3/6/2020 6/13/2019 Final date Approval IssuedIssued Issued Permit description Large additionRear 1st floor addtion & remodel Demo & rebuild of SFRWalk of the earth-Len EisenbergHistoric Preservation award Historic Preservation Week May 17th - 23rd, 2020 - This Place Matters Assign Hovenkamp/ShostromEmery WhitfordGiordanoSwink Permit Address 147 Central692 B ST 533 Fairview (aka 100 Union)Briscoe SchoolMark Knox Permit numberIndividual Award BD-R-2018-00144BD-R-2019-00204 BD-R-2018-00046 Civic Award 4/30/2018 Membership_Web.doc Commission Historic \\ Packets \\ Mail - Commission piper@terrainarch.comrevbev549@gmail.com EAddressshobro@jeffnet.orgkswink@mind.netskwhippet@ashlandhome.netterryskibby@gmail.combill@ashlandhome.netMaria.harris@ashland.or.usregan.trapp@ashland.or.us shaun.moran@council.ashland.or.us Historic \\ Committees & 20452233 -- Work Phone Commissions \\ 552552 List dev - comm \\ G: HomePhone Membership Dept.Dept. AshlandAshland ofof MailingAddress City PlanningCity Planning COMMISSION 2021202220212022202320222021 ------- 30303030303030 ------- TermExpiration4444444 HISTORIC Staff Liaison MoranTrapp Staff Harris SwinkVon Skibby ShostromWhitford Emery ASHLAND Commissioner’sNameDaleChairmanKeithSamTerryBillPiperChamierBeverlyHovenkampShaunCouncilPlanningMariaRegan Admin.