Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-06 Historic Packet IQBDDpnnjuuff!Bhfoeb Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any HPAC meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the public testimony may be limited by the Chair. Times noted for each item are approximate… August 6, 2025 AGENDA (4:00) CALL TO ORDER: Meeting held in person & via Zoom at: https://zoom.us/j/97359008191?pwd=QRVr754qbL3GEUAIU2xg75XaTzflFC.1 Meeting ID:973 5900 8191 Passcode: 051065 READING OF LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I.(4:05) APPROVAL OF AGENDA II.(4:10) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of July 2, 2025 III.(4:15) PUBLIC FORUM IV.(4:30) LIASON REPORTS Council Liaison - Jeff Dahle Staff Liaison – Derek Severson SERJAC Liaison – Victoria Sage V.(4:45) DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Review Board Assignments –August & September 2025 B.Attendance Report C.Celebrating 100 Years of the Ashland Springs: Award Options/Letter, Coloring Book Page VI.(5:00) LAND USE ITEM REVIEW PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2025-00272 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 40 Granite Street APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning as agent for owners, Mardene Mary Mastain Trust & Robin Janeen Donaldson Trust Page 1 of 2 IQBDDpnnjuuff!Bhfoeb DESCRIPTION A request for Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to make exterior modifications to legal non-conforming eight-unit apartment building at 40 Granite Street, including the addition of porches, decks and a small second-story bathroomaddition which expand the existing non-conforming front setback. The application also requests an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards to allow four-foot walkways on site where five feet is the minimum width allowed under AMC 18.4.3.090.B.4.c. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential;ZONING: R-1-7.5;MAP: 39-1E-09- BB;TAX LOT: 8200 VII.(5:30) ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 2 HPACCommittee Minutes (DRAFT) July 2, 2025 DRAFT MINUTES Chair Scharen called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Scharen, Whitford, Emery, DeLaunay and Verner were present. Repp arrived late. Bonetti, Skibby, Dahle & Sage were absent. There were no attendees via Zoom. Chair Scharen read the land acknowledgment. APPROVAL OF AGENDA All present agreed to add discussion of the Ashland Springs Hotel’s 100 birthday to the agenda. th APPROVAL OF MINUTES Whitford/Repp m/s to approve the minutes of April 2, 2025. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM None. LIASON REPORTS Council Liaison Jeff Dahle was absent. Staff Liaison Derek Severson provided brief updates on Pioneer Hall and the Community Center, the adoption of Climate Friendly Areas and a new Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA), an upcoming hearing to adopt the SOU Master Plan, upcoming processes to update the Transportation System Plan and adopt a new Manufactured Home Park Zone Ordinance, and the unveiling of the second Playwright’s Walk plaque in the Railroad Park. He also noted that there was an article on the Ashland Springs Hotel in today’s Rogue Valley Times written by local historian George Kramer and distributed a copy. SERJAC Liaison Victoria Sage was absent. Planning Commission Chair Lisa Verner noted that with changes to the code relative to Committees & Commissions, there was no longer a defined role for the Planning Commission Chair as an Ex Officio member of this committee, and as such this would be her last meeting. DISCUSSION ITEMS Review Board Assignments. Members volunteered to serve on the Review Board in July and August. Historic Preservation Week De-brief. There was brief discussion the Preservation Week activities in May, noting that there was interest in continuing and expanding Tombstone Tales potentially beyond the cemetery next year. It was noted that planning for Preservation Week should begin in January. Page 1 of 3 HPACCommittee Minutes (DRAFT) Discuss the Possibility of Quarterly Meetings. After brief discussion, there was general consensus to not meet in October or December of this year, and to revisit the number of annual meetings after the January 2026 meeting. Severson noted that there would be a land use action at the August meeting, and it was agreed that land use items and Review Board could be convened according to the regular schedule as needed. LAND USE ITEM REVIEW PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2025-00271 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 142 East Main Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Taylored Elements Construction/Allen Connolly DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to allow the construction of a coffee kiosk with a walk-up window for the property located at 142 East Main Street. The property is considered a primary contributing historic resource in the Ashland Downtown Historic District and is designated the McGee-Fortmiller Building. As proposed, the walk-up coffee kiosk would replace an ATM machine previously located on the building’s East Main Street façade. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial Downtown; ZONING: C-1-D; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 09BC; TAX LOT #:700 Severson presented a brief staff report and summarized the Review Boards comments from when the item was reviewed in May. The applicant team was not present. In brief discussion, it was noted that the business owner had done great work on historic buildings in the past, and that there was no question that equal care would be taken here. There was discussion of how the window would function and of how the kiosk related to the building internally, and what had been in the location historically, prior to the ATM. Whitford/Repp m/s to recommend approval of the application as presented. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. DISCUSSION OF THE ASHLAND SPRINGS HOTEL’S 100 BIRTHDAY TH Severson distributed an article from today’s Rogue Valley Times. It was noted that the hotel would be conducting a “soiree” to celebrate in September. It was suggested that the committee present the hotel with a special award, outside of the regular Preservation Week awards scheduled for next May. Severson stated he would look into the options based on available funds and bring some options back to the next meeting for consideration. Severson also noted that he and Repp attended a webinar on preservation where a suggestion was to create coloring book pages for historic properties and that the Ashland Springs Hotel might be a good option to do something like this locally. REVIEW BOARD DISCUSSION Page 2 of 3 HPACCommittee Minutes (DRAFT) 73 Granite Street/BD-R-2025-01325. Severson explained that this single-family residential building permit proposed a five-foot by nine-foot bathroom addition at the rear of the property, and while limited architectural detail was provided with the permit, the addition would not be visible from the street and would likely not be visually prominent from adjacent properties. After reviewing aerial photos and photos of other recent restoration work on-site, Review Board members indicated that they had no concerns with the proposal. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Scharen adjourned the meeting at 4:54 p.m. The next meeting will be on Wednesday, August 6 at 4:00 p.m. th Page 3 of 3 August 2025 HPAC Review Board Meet at 3:00pm - Lithia Room Every other week **Staff to email if there is anything to review on the off weeks** DATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ATTENDING Aug 7th Whitford Repp Emery Aug 21st Scharen ??? ??? *Call 541-488-5305 to verify there are items on the agenda to review September 2025 HPAC Review Board Meet at 3:00pm - Lithia Room Every other week **Staff to email if there is anything to review on the off weeks** DATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ATTENDING Sept 4th Sept 18th *Call 541-488-5305 to verify there are items on the agenda to review Memo DATE: August 6, 2025 TO: Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) Members FROM: Derek Severson, Planning Manager & Staff Liaison RE: 40 Granite Street Background The action to bereviewed tonight is arequest for Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to make exterior modifications to legal non-conforming eight-unit apartment building at 40 Granite Street, which is zoned for single family residential development. Site Design Review is required because exterior modifications, including the addition of porches, decks and a small second-story bathroom addition which expand the existing non-conforming front setback, may alter the way that the project relates to the applicable criteria and standards including the Historic District Development Standards. The Conditional Use Permit is required because the application expands the existing non-conforming front setback. The application also requests an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards to allow four-foot walkways on site where five feet is the minimum width allowed under AMC 18.4.3.090.B.4.c. When the HPAC Review Board considered the project at the pre-application level in January of 2025, they had thefollowing comments: Need existing as well as proposed elevations in order to compare. Need details of proposed windows & doors, and a delineation of changes proposed. HPAC has initial concerns with the proposed porch additions as they are not historically compatible with the historic contributing resource. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Site & Home The subject property at 40 Granite Street is zoned R-1-7.5, a single family residential zoning with a 7.500 square foot minimum lot size. Long before the single family zoning district on Granite Street was established with the adoption of the first zoning ordinance, an eight-unit apartment apartment building was developed. The apartment use is therefore considered to be a legal non-conforming use of the property. The Skidmore Academy Historic District National Register survey document describes the home as follows: The applicant’ssubmittalsinclude two historic photos of the Wagner house, which appear to have been taken prior to Butler’s constructionof the apartment building incorporating the original building. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Southern Oregon Historical Society Photo #SOHS-4454 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Southern Oregon Digital Archives Photo Ellen Henrix Wagner (1841-1929), Jacob Wagner's wife is standing in the side yard of the home behind a picket fence. A relatively plain house at 40 Granite Street that is now home to apartments is hiding an earlier house. The old house is still inside, according to Terry Skibby, and a new house built around it. Originally, it faced the other direction and was a Gothic design. The old house was owned by Jacob Wagner (1820-1900), the longtime manager of the Ashland Flour Mill, which stood near the entrance to Lithia Park. Wagner served as a Jackson County commissioner and as a senator in the Oregon Legislature. \[Note: This photo includes what appears to be a small second-story deck in the upper left.\] Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) per AMC 18.2.5.070 Residential properties within the historic districts are subject to a maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) which is based on the lot size and number of units as detailed in AMC 18.2.5.070. Basements meeting the basement definition in AMC 18.6.1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 are not considered in the MPFA floor area calculations. The application includes calculations demonstrating that the allowed MPFA for the subject property is 4,275.48 square feet, and with the exclusion of the 2,044.89 square foot basement,the remaining floor area is 4,088.18 square feet which complies with theMPFA limitation. Setbacks Within Ashland’s historic district overlays, afront yard setback of20 feet is required andthere are no provisions to reduce this setback requirement for unenclosed porches as there are in other residential districts. AMC 18.2.5.060.A.2 does provide that, “If there is a dwelling or accessory building on one abutting lot with a front yard of less than the required depth for the district, the front yard need not exceed the average yard of the depth of the abutting lot and the required front yard depth.” The application materials indicate that the dwelling on the abutting lot at 46 Granite Street is setback 12.7 feet from the front property line. On that basis, the required setback for 40 Granite Street is 16.35 feet (i.e. one-half of the 20-foot required setback and the 12.7-foot setback on the abutting lot). As proposed, the building is noted as being 16 feet from the front property line (i.e. about four-inches out of compliance with averaged required setback). A small, approximately 64.4 square foot bathroom bump-out addition is proposed above the entry, and this addition as well as the proposed porches and decks continue the existing non-conforming setback and necessitate the Conditional Use Permit. There is a ten-footper story rear yard setback, and a deck is proposed off of the second story however AMC 18.6.1.030.S explicitly provides that, “ A basement is not considered a story. Unenclosed decks, porches, balconies, and similar features are not considered stories.” As such, no additional setback is required for the proposed second story deck. Materials, Siding & Trim The application materials describe the historic home as having a cement “Miracle Block” foundation; three-inch teardrop-profiled horizontal wood siding on the basement and first floor levels; a five-inch belly band; 4¾-inch square trim; 4 3/8- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 inch corner boards; and cedar shake siding on the second floor. The application materials indicate that siding, trim and any replacement block are to match the original materials. Any removed horizontal siding is to be replaced with specialty- milled 3-inch teardrop-shaped wood siding to match the original finish and size, while exterior siding on the new proposed porch will have the same 3-inch reveal but will not have the same tear drop edge of the original siding. In staff’s assessment, key elements relative to the materials, siding and trim to be considered by the HPAC Review Board include: Is adding a “bead-molding trim cap” over windows & doors as described in the submittal materials acceptable? Are all of the existing corbels being retained? The narrative suggests that the original corbels are being retained, however as illustrated, it appears that while the corbels at the roof peak are to be retained, corbels at the eaves may be proposed for removal. Porches & Decks In initial review, theHPACReview Boardexpressedconcern with the proposed porches and decks suggesting that they were not historically compatible with a historic contributing resource. The pre-application submittal was limited to a site plan showing the placement of decks wrapping the front and rear of the building, without supporting elevation drawings. The current application includes photographs of the existing home, which currently does not have decks, and elevation drawings including those below: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 To assist HPAC in considering the proposed decks, staff would note that a number of the existing historic single-family homes on this block of Granite Street have decks andporches in some form, as shown in photos from Google, Zillow & Nearmap below: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 25 GraniteStreet. Front porch and second-story deck (Zillow photo). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 35 Granite Street. Frontporch andsecond-story deck (Zillow photo). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 65 Granite Street. Front porch and second-story deck (Google Streetview). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 73 Granite Street.Front porch and second-story deck, rehabilitationunderway (Google Streetview). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 87 Granite Street. Front porch (Google Streetview). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 94 Granite Street (front). Front porchandsecond-story deck (Zillow photo). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 94 Granite Street (rear). Rear deck (Zillow photo). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 88 Granite Street. Front porch and small second-story deck (Zillow photo). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 80 Granite Street. Front porch and small second-story deck (Google Streetview). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 52 Granite Street (front). Original front porch (Google Streetview). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 52 Granite Street (front). Original front porch (Zillow photo). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 52 Granite Street (rear). Rear deck (Nearmap Image). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 60 Granite Street (side). Sideyard to Rear deck (Zillow photo). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 46 Granite Street(rear of the the abutting lot). Rear deck. In considering the proposal, HPAC can look at the Historic District Development Standards and the character of the surrounding neighborhood in determining whether the porch and deck additions proposed are compatible. Staff have attached copies of the standards along with Historic Building Briefs on windows, exterior materials and additions to assist HPAC review; these briefs were prepared by Historic Commissioners, staff and a consultant in coordination with the State Historic COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Preservation Office to explain key preservation concepts as they relate to local, state and national preservation standards. Staff note that the design standards in AMC 18.4.2.050.B.1 speak to ‘Transitional Areas’ noting that, “For projects located at the boundary between zones or overlays, appropriate adjustments to building form, massing, height, scale, placement, or architectural and material treatment may be considered to address compatibility with the transitional area while not losing sight of the underlying standards or requirements applicable to the subject property.” In this instance, the subject property’s rear boundary abuts Calle Guanajuato, which is city park property separating the residential properties along Granite Street in the Skidmore Academy District from the commercial properties on the Plaza in the Downtown District. Given the unique nature of the use as a historic eight-unit apartment building in a single family zone, the variety of deck and porch treatments in the immediate vicinity, the location in a transitional area between zones and historic districts, and the applicant’s efforts to provide outdoor living space for each of the small apartments, staff believe there is a basis to approve the decks if HPAC finds that the design and material treatments proposed are compatible and that the placement on the street- facing façade does not overpower the existing historic home. Windows The historic survey document for theproperty (see above) suggeststhat the1/1 wood sash windows are one of the elements that effectively relate to the history of the structure. The application notes that of all of the building’s windows, onlynine of the original 1/1 wood sash windows remain and all of the others have been replaced with vinyl windows over time. The application further indicates that all of the building’s windows are proposed for replacement with the current proposal. The application materials do not provide specific details of the window replacements proposed. With regard to windows, the Historic District Development Standards speak to the Rhythm of Openings as follows: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 The ‘Rehabilitation Standards for Existing Buildings and Additions’ note: 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. In staff’s view,HPACmaywish to consideradding acondition recommending that the replacement windows match the original windows to avoid the potential that all windows will be replaced with vinyl and one of the key elements relating the building’s history lost. Staff Recommendation The Butler Apartments reflect just the sort of housing now discussed with great frequency in planning and housing circles – “missing middle housing” solutions that COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 filled thegap between detached single family residences and high-rise apartments. These types of housing were legal and compatible withing their neighborhoods until restrictive zoning regulations were imposed. Staff believe that the applicant should be commended for their willingness to make such a significant investment in this property and the broader district to support its continued use as needed long-term rental housing and to improve its safety and its livability for future tenants. In staff’s view, some key issues for HPAC’s consideration in preparing a recommendation for this application include: Do HPAC members wish to recommend that all original corbels be maintained? (https://ashland.municipal.codes/LandUse/18.4.2.050.C.2.b) Do HPAC members wishto recommend a conditionthat all replacement materials (including ‘miracle block’, 3-inch horizontal siding with teardrop profile, cedar shakes and trim) match the originalmaterials, as proposed by the applicant? (https://ashland.municipal.codes/LandUse/18.4.2.050.C.2.c) Do HPAC memberswish to recommenda condition that the replaced windows match the original windows (i.e. require 1/1 wood sash windows)? (https://ashland.municipal.codes/LandUse/18.4.2.050.C.2.g) Do HPAC membersfindthatthe proposed additions(small bathroom addition, porches and decks) are compatible? Are there specific designor material changes that HPAC would like to recommend? (https://ashland.municipal.codes/LandUse/18.4.2.050.C.2.j) Attachments: Application Submittal Materials Historic District Development Standards Historic Building Briefs: Windows, Exterior Materialsand Additions COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit to Expand a Non-Conforming Structure 40 Granite St Address: 40 Granite St, Ashland Map & Tax Lot: 39 1E 09BB Tax Lot: 8200 Property Owner: Fortify Granite LLC 114 Granite St Ashland, OR 97520 Building Design: Stever Design Services steverdesign@yahoo.com Engineering Services: DEI Engineering PO BOX 796 Talent, OR 97535 Landscape Design: Terrain Landscape Architecture 310 Oak Street, Unit#2 Ashland, OR 97520 Planning Consultant: Rogue Planning & Development Services 1314-B Center Dr., PMB 457 Medford, OR 97501 Request: Request for Site Design Review to allow for exterior modification of the non-conforming, eight-unit, multi-family residential structure located at 40 Granite Street in the single-family residential zone. The historic use of the property as an eight-unit apartment complex in the single-family zone is a pre- existing, non-conforming use, and the historic site development is non-conforming to the Site Design Standards. The proposal addresses the criteria for multi-family development Site Design review and brings many of the site elements closer to the standards. The existing 5.58-foot X 8.5-foot covered front porch is setback 16 feet from the front property line, where 20 feet is required. The proposal seeks to widen the non-conforming front porch and enlarge the upstairs apartment unit with an addition on the second story. A conditional use permit to enlarge the non-conforming setback is included in is application. Though there are areas of steep slopes on the property, the proposed site development avoids the steep slopes. Property Description: The subject property is situated on the east side of Granite Street, approximately 116 feet north of the intersection with Baum Street and approximately 36 feet south of the intersection of High Street and Granite Street. The property to the north and east is the City of Ashland Parks Department property that is part of the City of Ashland, the Calle Guanajuato Way parcel. The properties to the south and 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 1 west are zoned residential and developed with single-family dwelling units and their accessory structures. Spanning 0.32 acres (13,939.2 square feet). An 8-unit apartment building occupies the property. The structure is a 4,089 square foot, two-story buildingwith a 770square foot finished basement. To the northwest of the apartment building is a detached garage measuring 600 square feet that is approximately two feet from the north property line. The property is accessed via a driveway apron from Granite Street on the north-west side of the property. A 900-square-foot gravel area is between the garage and the street. Located within the R-1-7.5 zoning district of Ashland, this property is part of the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The existing building is classified as a legal non-conforming use due to its eight dwellings, a status established prior to the adoption of zoning ordinances. According to the National Register Nomination form for the Skidmore Academy Historic District, the Wagner-Bulter Apartments were originally constructed as a large residence for the Jacob Wagner Family. 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 2 In 1924, Ed Butler converted the structure into an eight-unit apartment complex. This structure was damaged in a fire eight years later and rebuilt. It is assumed that much of the current condition is the same as it was in 1924. 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 3 According to the Historic Resource Inventory – “Containing visible elements of its successive development, from the concrete ‘miracle' block foundation, 1/1 wood sash windows, and an interior brick chimney, the Wagner House/Butler Apartments effectively relatethe history of the structure, converted and rebuilt during the period of significance.” The structure includes exterior materials such as 3-inch tear-drop shape horizontal wood sidingon the first story and at the rear on the exposed wall of the basement level. There is a five-inch belly band and cedar shakes on the second story. A double front door was the street-facing entrance to access the units at the front of the building. There are some 1/1 wood sash windows, but all first-story and basement windows are vinyl. The second story has nine original wood windows. There are four on the front façade, two on the north façade, and three on the south façade. Window trim on most windows is 4 ¾ -inch square trim and 4 3/8 -inch-wide corner boards. Some of the small windows include a parting bead in the trim. The wood windows on the upper level are covered with metal storm windows, and the interior window frames are in poor condition, with broken ropes and weights. Hinged patio doors are present on the rear of the structure that provided access to the lower level units. Granite Street along the frontage of the property is improved with a concrete sidewalk and a narrow planting strip. There are overhead power lines along the property frontage. The property has a gentle slope from south to north with a steep slope along the eastern property line that falls within an area designated as having severe slope constraints. There are a significant number of trees on the property that are more than six inches in diameter at breast height. These trees were evaluated by an arborist, Willie Gingh of Southern Oregon Tree Care. All trees will be retained. Proposal: The property owners intend to substantially remodel the existing eight-unit apartment building. The proposal requires a Site Design Review to make exterior modifications to a building with more than three dwelling units through the addition of 64.4 square feet to the upstairs bathroom, covered porches and decks, and installation of a covered bicycle parking area. Exterior Modifications: The proposal includes the enlargement of the upper-level o bathroom in Unit #5 through a bump-out at the front of the structure. This addition conforms to the existing non-conforming front yard setback. o The proposal also expands the front porch to enhance the front entrance and to provide o a functional outdoor area for the tenants. Covered porcheswill be added to the exterior entries of the units that are to be accessed from the sides and the rear of the structure. 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 4 These decks will provide a private, outdoor space for each unit. All covered porches and decks comply with setbacks. Pedestrian Walkways: Safer, more level and consistently surfaced pedestrian connectivity will be installed that provides walkways from the street, through the site to the primary entrances of each unit, and to the bicycle parking areas. Screening: A screened trash/recycle enclosure area is also proposed. Structural and Site Improvements Installation of a robust support system in the basement as per the engineer's recommendations. Removal of substandard wall coverings, replacement with drywall. Upgrading insulation in walls, floors, and ceilings while redesigning apartments for more uniform dimensions. Installation of fire rated interior walls. Installation of new windows with higher U values than the existing vinyl. Fire Suppression Sprinkler System. Comprehensive kitchen and living space remodels to modernize outdated features. The existing structure with the small addition in floor area conforms to the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA). According to AMC 18.2.5.070.G, which addresses Multiple Dwellings and Residential Performance Standards Options, the MPFA for a structure withmultiple dwelling units on a single lot is determined using a graduated formula. Specifically, the MPFA is calculated as follows: MPFA = 13,939 X .59 = 8224.01 X .52 = 4,276.48 SF Based on data from the Jackson County Assessor's office and onsite measurements, the total floor area for the first and second floors is 4,088.18 square feet, a two-story structure with a 770 square foot finished basement. With the addition of a bathroom area of 64.64 square feet to Unit 5, the structure increases to 4,152.82 square feet, which remains below the allowable MPFA of 4,276.48 square feet. The basement area is to be enlarged within the footprint of the building by modifying the layout, but the floor area of the basement is not included in the maximum permitted floor area calculations. In the R-1-7.5 zoning district, the maximum allowable lot coverage is 45 percent, which translates to 6,276 square feet for this lot. The proposed lot coverage is 5,314 square feet; 200 square feet of this coverage is exempt since the trash area and outdoor pergola will feature a porous solid surface that facilitates stormwater infiltration. The existing front yard setback of the structure is 16 feet. The proposal seeks to expand/enlarge the width of the front porch along the same setback line and to bump outthe bathroom on the second floor to make it functional. The expansion/enlargement of the non-conforming setback requires a Conditional Use Permit. See additional findings. A minor exception to the required widthof pedestrian walkways through the site is proposed. The exception request has been strategically and thoroughly analyzed to maximize the use of non- 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 5 conforming site development while providing pedestrian access, bike parking, and prioritizing tree preservation. The adjustment is designed to ensure efficient utilization of the property, enhance accessibility, and maintain environmental considerations. The site presently only has dirt pathways leading to the residences. As part of site development, four- foot-wide walkways are proposed. The proposal to provide a four-foot walkway and not a five-foot walkway requires an exception to the Site Design Review Standard 18.4.3.090.B.4.c. This adjustment provides adequate space for pedestrian circulation between building entrances, the open space areas, the bike parking areas, and the public street while staying as close to the allowed lot coverages. It can be found that the extensive renovations and restoration of the historic contributing structure, including the proposed exterior modifications, are consistent with the Site Design and Use Standards when considering the non-conforming development of the single-family zoned residential property with a multi-family residential dwelling structure. It can be found that the historic structure retains its orientation, stature, roof shape, and pitch. The siding and trim details are to be retained and, when replaced, replaced with matching replacement materials. The historic elements, such as the miracle block foundation, central chimney, arching front porch detail, and 1/1 windows, are not obscured as part of the proposed addition of the decksand porches, expansion of the front porch, and the additional floor area for Unit 5. 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 6 FINDINGS OF FACT Nonconforming Developments:18.1.4.010 A. Nonconforming uses (e.g., commercial use in a residential zone) are subject to section 18.1.4.020; B.Nonconforming structures (e.g., structure does not meet setback standards) are subject to section 18.1.4.030; C.Nonconforming developments (e.g., site does not meet landscaping standards) are subject to section 18.1.4.040; Finding: The site is a nonconforming development because the use is a multi-family residential building in the single-family residential zone. The structure is non-conforming because the existing front yard setback to the covered front porch is 16 feet, where 20feet is required. Additionally, the existing rear yard setbackis approximately 14 feet, where 20 feet would be required for a two-story structure. The proposed structural additions to the structure conform to setbacks or seek a Conditional Use Permit to expand the non-conforming front yard setback. The multi-family structure and development requirements for multi-family residential sites are not met. There is no bicycle parking, no paved pedestrian walkways, no common trash/recycle facilities, and limited functional open space. This proposal seeks to remedy some of the non-conforming site improvements. The most important considerations are to the general overall safety of the tenants of the eight-unit apartment building. As a former single family residential dwelling that was added onto and enlarged to create the building in its current form in the 1920s, there are numerous life and safety issues presented within this structure. There are no headers or structural supports in any of the windows or exterior doors. There were no fire- rated walls or doors between the common entry and the stairs of the building. There was little to no insulation in the oldest portions of the building. Due to previous fire(s), according to a former tenant from the 1960s, and confirmed during the interior demolition, the upper-level floor joists had dropped enough that itcreated a sloping interior floor that, after tenants were “rolling out of their beds”, false floors were constructed to level the interior living space. Fire damage was evident both on the interior entry stairway as well as in the basement on the northeast portion of the structure. From the front of the structure to the rear, the building had dropped more than six inches. Evidence of this is seen in the window framing and trim at the northeast corner of the structure. The proposal increases the structural stability of the historic structure. The proposal retains existing siding and proposes to relocate and replace the windows to better serve the interior of the structure and provide adequate emergency egress that the previous apartments lacked. 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 7 Site Design Review Approval Criteria 18.5.2.050 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 property is within the R-1-7.5 Zone. The proposal will comply with all required setbacks. The proposed lot coverage, density, building height, orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards for multi-family development have been met or can be met with the imposition of conditions. The allowed density for R-1-7.5 zoned property is two units per legal lot. This property currently has eight legal non-conforming residential units, seven of which are studios, and one is a two-bedroom. The existing and proposed structures comply with setbacks of the zoning district and the allowed reduced front yard setback based on the average setback of adjacent properties. The existing front setback is 21 feet, six inches to the front of the building and 16feet to the covered front porch. The proposed front porches have a setback of 16 feet, one inch. This is an expansion/enlargement of a non-conformingsetback, and a conditional Use Permit is requested as part of this application. The existing rear setback is 14 feet. This setback is not reduced with the addition of uncovered decks. Side yard setbacks are well over 6 feet. In the R-1-7.5 zoning district, the maximum allowable lot coverage is 45 percent, which translates to 6,276 square feet for this lot. The proposed lot coverage is 5,314 square feet; however, 200 square feet of this coverage is exempt since the trash area and outdoor pergola will feature a porous solid surface that facilitates stormwater infiltration. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) in the Historic District for the development of eight (8) dwelling units is (13,939.2 x .59 x 0.52 = 4,276.55 SF). The proposed gross habitable floor area to calculate MPFA is 4,152.82 SF. The area includes all floors except the basement as an allowed exception, when the basement complies with the building code requirements by featuring a floor-to- ceiling height that exceeds six and one-half feet. The perimeter walls do not exceed 12 feet above finished grade. Moreover, over 50 percent of the perimeter walls are less than six feet above natural grade, allowing for adequate ventilation and light access. The basement area is to be enlarged within the footprint of the building by modifying the layout, but the floor area of the basement is not included in the maximum permitted floor area calculations. The building height and the density of the property are not impacted by the proposal. 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 8 B.Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). Finding: The property is located within the Historic Skidmore District, where the proposed modifications to the Butler Apartments strategically utilize elements of historic design periods present in the district. The structure consists of an eight-unit apartment building constructed from a single-family residence, enlarged and modified to its present form. Withinthe impact area, the majority of residential structures are prior to 1910. Of these there are smaller craftsman/bungalows, vernacular I and T homes, and Italianate style dominate the construction types. This large rehabilitation project includes replacing anyremoved horizontal siding with specialty milled materials, 3-inch rounded-edge (tear drop-shaped) wood siding. Any cedar shakes that need to be replaced will be with material similar in shape, texture, and composition as the existing shakes. While the existing windows and doors will remain generally the same size and location, egress windows will be added in the basement units, and new exterior doors will change the locations of existing windows. The pattern and rhythm of the openings remain largely the same. The updated paint will use historically accurate colors to enhance the building's character. The addition of outdoor decks represents a new element that has been designed to respect the existing structure, maintaining the same roof pitch while ensuring that the decks are visually unobtrusive and do not obscure defining features. These modifications have been evaluated for compliance with the city's Historic Preservation Standards and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Renovations, and align with the applicable overlay zone requirements. The efforts made in this proposal aim to preserve the historic integrity of the property while enhancing its habitable condition and aesthetic appeal. The design choices will complement the original architecture, ensuring coherence with neighboring historic properties and reinforcing the overall visual integrity of the district. Historic District Design Standards 18.4.2.050. B. 1. Transitional Areas Findings: The subject property is within the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The subject property is occupied by a historic, contributing structure. This structure, as an eight-unit apartment building within the single-family low-density zone, is a non-conforming situation. The proposal is for exterior additions in the form of an enlarged second floor through the addition of a bump out that will enlarge the interior apartment bathroom space, which is presently non-functional due to its size. This bump-out is atop the area of the existing front porch. 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 9 The proposal includes widening the front porch across the façade of the structure and wrapping around to an enlarged front porch. To the sides and rear of the structure, new covered porches are proposed at each apartment entrance and create a functional, usable outdoor space for each of the small units. 2. Height. Construct new buildings to a height within the range of historic building heights on and across the street. Finding: The additional floor area on the second and the addition of covered porches do not increase the height or the scale of the existing historic structure. 3. Scale. Height, width, and massing of new buildings conform to historic buildings in the immediate vicinity. Finding: The addition of the covered porches breaks up the single, somewhat monolithic form of the existing building. 4. Massing. Small, varied masses consistent with historic buildings in the immediate vicinity. Finding: The porches add smaller, varied masses. 5. Setback. Front walls of new buildings are in the same plane as facades of adjacent historic buildings. Finding: The proposed front porch expansion and the addition to the second floor are consistent with the setbacks of the subjectproperty and the historicsetback of the existing porch. The front porch additions utilize roof shape, pitch, and materials as the historic structures in the vicinity. There are numerous examples of front porches, wrap-around porches within 200-feet of the property. 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 10 6. Roof. Roof shape, pitches, and materials consistent with historic buildings in the immediate vicinity. Finding: The historic roofline of the Wagner House within the Butler Apartments renovations is not altered. The chimney is not altered. The shape, pitch, and materials are consistent with the historic contributing structure. The proposed roof pitch of the porches is consistent with the pitch, shape, and materials found on other structures in the immediate vicinity. 7. Rhythm of Openings. Pattern or rhythm of wall to door/window openings on the primary façade or other visually prominent elevation is maintained. Maintain compatible width-to-height ratio of bays in the façade. Finding: The proposal increases the sizes of a few of the windows to provide egress. The pattern of these new windows is compatible in width-to-height ratioand the rhythm of window openings with the historic window openings on the visually prominent elevations facing Granite Street and facing Lithia Park. The form of the historic structure remains with the porch additions. The proposed addition of the floor area, creating the second story bump out, and the addition of porches on the front and sides of the building can be found to enhance the character of the historic building. The addition of the porches does not obscure or eliminate the character-defining characteristics. 8. Base or Platforms. A clearly defined base, or platform, characteristic of historic buildings in the immediate vicinity. Finding: The historic elements of the structure, including the “miracle block” foundation. The base of the existing historic structure has not been modifed. Any areas where windows or other penetrations into thefoundation are repaired, the replacement block will be textured to appear to be miracleblock as the practice has been historically on this structure. 9. Form. 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 11 Form (i.e., vertical/horizontal emphasis of building) that is consistent with that of adjacent historic buildings. Finding: The form of the structure is modified through the addition of porches but the addition can beseen as a positive enhancement and consistent with that of adjacent historic buildings. The structurehas a very vertical, boxy form that is inconsistent with the adjacent historic structures that have front and side porches, various rooflines, bay windows, and overhangs that provide interesting breaks in the scale and mass of the structure. The subject building's form isaltered to a more horizontal emphasis, which visually reduces the mass and boxy form of the historic structure. 10. Entrances. Well-defined primary entrances with covered porches, porticos, and other architectural features compatible but not imitative of historic counterparts. Finding: Each unit will have a well-defined primary entrance. The primary building entrance facing Granite Street will be improved through the increase in length and usefulnessof the front porch and the architectural feature of the unit bump-out. The archway entrance feature that is presently within a gable roof will be reformed with a horizontal roof form as found in the historic photos. 11. Imitation of Historic Features. Accurate restoration of original architectural features on historic buildings. New construction, including additions, that is clearly contemporary in design, which enhances but does not compete visually with adjacent historic buildings. Finding: The proposed front porches and upper level porch on the historic contributing structure is found on the original structure that occupied the property with a larger front porch and an upper level porch with what appears to be a rooftop porch. Wide, more expansive front porches and wrap-around porches are a common element found on 1920s and 1930s era craftsman-type structures, which this building appears to be most comparable to. The proposed porches for the eight-unit apartment building enhance and do not compete visually with the adjacent historic buildings. 12. Additions. 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 12 Additions that are visually unobtrusive from a public right-of-way, and do not obscure or eliminate character-defining features of historic buildings. Finding: The high gables, the sidingmaterials, the foundation exposure, and the locations and sizes of the windows are not obscured by the proposed addition of the porches, decks, and the modestly increased floor area with the window bump-out. 18.4.2.050. C.2. Rehabilitation Standards for Existing Buildings and Additions. Finding: The proposal isto not only rehabilitatethe eight-unit apartment buildingwithin a modified structure, and to take corrective measures which will make thestructure livable with numerous fire, life, and safety issues, such as lack of level floorsand walls, lack of egress windows, inadequate fire separations between units, lack of functional counter and bathroom facilities to odd floor plan and layout. As recognized by the standards, some aspects of rehabilitation entail renovation and the introduction of new elements. The proposed preservation and reintroduction of historic elements protects those portions or features that convey their historical, cultural, and architectural character. These are the very features through which the visual integrity and the economic value of the building are preserved. It is through the introduction of standard multi-family building code compliance and the creation of functional entrances, viable and useable private outdoor spaces provided by the proposed porches and decks that preserve and enhance the economic value of the building and the property. The modern elements of the porches are necessary to provide functional outdoor space for the small, interestingly laid out floor plans. The porches and decks, and the bump-out are designed in a manner that is sympathetic to the original design. The window and door trim detail is proposed to include a bead molding to create a trim cap, which is a trim detail found in craftsman-stylestructures. This is more modern than the existing, simple, rectangular trim found on the structure presently. The proposed change to the trim does not significantly alter the historic contributing structure but enhances its relationship to the era of craftsman style structures from when it was remodeled from the Wagner House of the late 1800s to the Butler Apartments of the mid-1920s. a. Historic architectural styles and associated features shall not be replicated in new additions or associated buildings. Finding: The structure consists of two ‘historic’ structures within one. The original structure was the Jacob Wagner House. It was a late 1890s Victorian structure with gingerbread features hanging from the 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 13 eaves, a steeply pitched roof, a flat roof with arch detail on the front porch, and wide column details. The Butler Apartments were constructed out of the Wagner House, removing much of the roofline and replacing the Victorian elements with craftsman-style elements. The porch remained generally the same, with a gable roof feature above the arch detail on the covered front porch. The foundation, the window trim, horizontal siding, the chimney, and the window shape remain similar to or the same as the original historic building. The proposed covered porches on the front façade are proposed to have a wide column arch detail similar to the design of the original historic structure. The overall porch design is a new feature with the architectural details being more contemporary. The historic appearance of the structure is maintained and the proposed porches are not attempting to misrepresent the historic appearance of the building. b.Original architectural features shall be restored as much as possible, when those features can be documented. Finding: There are historic photographs of the Wagner House, but there is a lack of historical photographs of the Butler Apartments. It can only be assumed that the existing structure is largely in the shape, form, and architectural detail as it is currently presented. Many of the original architectural features are retained. The horizontal roofdetail with arch inset is found on the original Wagner House as evidenced in these photos. The gable roof with the arch inset is found on the current Butler Apartments covered porch. The proposal is to return the detail to the original horizontal plane to reflect the more historic detail. 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. 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 14 Finding: The replacement siding will be milled to match the original finish and size. The exterior siding on the proposed porch is the same 3-inch reveal as the horizontal siding, but will not have the teardrop edge found on the original horizontal siding. The corbels found in the eaves will be retained. d.Diagonal and vertical siding shall be avoided on new additions or on historic buildings except in those instances where it was used as the original siding. Finding: Not applicable. No vertical or diagonal siding is proposed. e. Exterior wall colors on new additions shall match those of the historic building. Finding: The proposal includes changing the paint color from a faded blue to a buttery yellow color with black trim and sand-colored highlights. Consistent with 18.4.050.C.2.l. The latest version of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings shall be used in clarifying and determining whether the above standards are met. The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings refers to historically appropriate paint colors from the building and district. The existing blue color is very faded and does not provide the necessary protection from rainwater penetrations that new caulking and paint provide. It is difficult to determine the historic color due to the faded condition of the paint there is possibly white paint under the existing faded blue. The Secretary of the Interior Standards do not require that historic buildings forever retain their paint color, where that is implied by the Ashland Standards. This application seeks to follow the Secretary of the Interior Standards, and the historically appropriate color as selected is allowable consistent with the standards. (Secretary of the Interior Rehabilitation Guidelines, 1997; Building Exterior, Wood; pg. 11). f. Imitative materials including but not limited to asphalt siding, wood textured aluminum siding, and artificial stone shall be avoided. Finding: No imitative materials are proposed. 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. 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 15 Finding: All of the windows are proposed to be replaced. Only nine wooden windows exist on the upper floor. The sashes are damaged,and the rope mechanism to open the windows does not function. The doors at the rear of the structure are hinged single-sided swing patio doors. These will be replaced in new locations, but using the same size as the opening. Window locations are proposed to be modified to create egress windows and add exterior doors on the sides of the structure. All of the proposed windows and doors are compatible in proportion, shape, and size, but do not replicate thehistoric windows. The rhythm of openings and the symmetry of the openings within the renovated structure is maintained on both the front and rear sides, which are prominent to the street and to Lithia Park. h. Reconstructed roofs on historic buildings shall match the pitch and form of the original roof. Roofs on new additions shall match the pitch and form of the historic building, and shall be attached at a different height so the addition can be clearly differentiated from the historic building. Shed roofs are acceptable for one-story rear additions. Finding: The proposed porches include a shed roof. The shed roof is a typical porch roof form and type. The shed roof porches are found in both eras of construction that are found within this one structure. i. Asphalt or composition shingle roofs are preferred. Asphalt shingles which match the original roof material in color and texture are acceptable. Wood shake, woodshingle, tile, and metal roofs shall be avoided. Finding: A composition shingle roof materialto match the existing in color and texture is proposed. j. New porches or entries shall be compatible with, but not replicate, the historic character of the building. Finding: The proposed porches include a shed roof. The shed roof is a typical porch roof form and type. The shed roof porches are found in both eras of construction that are found within this one structure. The building's current form is the American Craftsman architectural style, and the proposed shed roof is consistent with the era of construction. There are front porches on nearly all of the structures in the impact area. There are also wrap around front porches, second-story porches 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 16 and decks found on both residential and commercial structures in the impact area. These include the structures at 65 Granite Street, 41 Granite Street and 25 Granite Street. The proposed balustrade is similar in style to the bench-back balustrade on the existing porch. This style of balustrade is more similar to a craftsman style porch detail than a spindle type rail. k. New detached buildings shall be compatible with the associated historic building and shall conform to the above standards. Finding: Not applicable l. The latest version of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings shall be used in clarifying and determining whether the above standards are met. Finding: As a structure that encompasses two distinctly different eras and architectural types of construction, while being an eight-unitapartment building not renovated since the 1930s, there are numerous renovations and restorationsnecessary to make the multi-family structure more habitable by bringing it up to more current standards. This includes upgrades and replacement of virtually all utility systems, including electrical, plumbing, and sanitary sewer services. Mechanical upgrades with the installation of mini-split systems. Compressorswill be located on the sides and rear of the structure and located in a manner to not detract from the exterior façade improvements and to not conceal any architectural features. Adding fire-rated separations between the units and in the common stair areas. Adding insulation,leveling floors, replacement of vinyl windows with more efficient vinyl windows. 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 17 The structure is being improved to ensure it is present for another 100 years but also to modernize the multi-family buildingand preserves its economicfunctions as a multi-family apartment building. Proposed renovations are sensitive to the era of the structure'sconstruction while being mindful that the building contains eight small dwellings that had limited areas outside of the unit to the enjoyment of the beautiful property and location. As buildings evolve, addition of porches and decks is a simple and effective modification to a structure without destroying the underlying historic façade. The property has areas of Severely Constrained slopes, but none of the proposed development does not impact the areas that are in excess of 35 percent slopes. 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. Finding: The proposed site development complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards. The proposed bike parking is adjacent to the residential dwelling on one side of the building and within the garage. There are short travel distances from the bike parking spaces to the entrances of the dwellings. The layout and design do not provide for vulnerable areas that are not visible from the units. The primary entrance opens toward the street and is connected to the right-of-way via a walkway. Building materials, colors, and designs are compatible with the other developments in the area and with historic integrity. 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: Adequate city facilities, including water, sewer, and electricity, exist to serve the proposed development. All street frontages are paved with curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Street trees will be provided for every 30 feet of frontage. No changes are proposed to the street frontage. Site Development Standards 18.4 18.4.2 BUILDING PLACEMENT, ORIENTATION, AND DESIGN 18.4.2.030 Residential Development C. Building Orientation. 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 18 1. Building Orientation to Street. Dwelling units shall have their primary orientation toward a street. Where residential buildings are located within 20 feet of a street, they shall have a primary entrance opening toward the street and connected to the right-of-way via an approved walkway. Finding: All residential units that front upon the public street are oriented towards the street and have a primary entrance opening toward the street connected via a walkway. 2. Limitation on Parking between Primary Entrance and Street. Automobile circulation or off-street parking is not allowed between the building and the street. Parking areas shall be located behind buildings or on one or both sides. Finding: No vehicle parking is proposed. There is a gravel driveway to the existing garage that will remain. 3. Build-to Line. Where a new building is proposed in a zone that requires a build-to line or maximum front setback yard, except as otherwise required for clear vision at intersections, the building shall comply with the build-to line standard. Finding: Granite Street is the front façade with the front yard setback at 16 feet. This is the existing built to line. The expansion of the width of the porch within the required 20-foot front yard in the historic district requires a conditional use permit. D. Garages. 1. Alleys and Shared Drives. Where a lot abuts a rear or side alley, or a shared driveway, including flag drives, the garage or carport opening(s) for that dwelling shall orient to the alley or shared drive, as applicable, and not a street. Finding: The lot doesn’t abut an alley or shared driveway, and the non-conforming garage is proposed to be converted to bike parking area. 2. Setback for Garage Opening Facing Street. The minimum setback for a garage (or carport) opening facing a street is 20 feet. This provision does not apply to alleys. Finding: The existing garage is setback substantially more than 20-feet from the street. 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 19 E. Building Materials. Building materials and paint colors should be compatible with the surrounding area. Very bright primary or neon-type paint colors, which attract attention to the building or use, are unacceptable. Finding: The building design and materials are commonly found in Ashland’s Historic Districts. The materials are compatible with the surrounding area. The existing horizontal siding and the shingle siding on the upper story are proposed to be maintained. The proposed colors are a buttery yellow body, black trim, and brown accents. F. Streetscape. One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for each 30 feet of frontage for that portion of the development fronting the street pursuant to subsection 18.4.4.030.E. Finding: New street trees that comply with the City of Ashland Street Tree planting standards will be provided. The landscaping plan provides the species chosen for the street trees. Four street trees will be planted in the landscape parkrow.An irrigation plan has been provided. G. Landscaping and Recycle/Refuse Disposal Areas. Landscaping and recycle/refuse disposal areas shall be provided pursuant to chapter 18.4.4. Finding: In coordination with Recology regarding the number, location, and access to the refuse area, the proposed screened area is adjacent to the garage. Recycle and refuse containers or disposal areas will be screened by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall five feet in height. See additional findings in the sections below. H. Open Space. Common and/or private open space is required to be provided pursuant to section 18.4.4.070. Finding: More than 8% of the lot will be dedicated to open space and adhere to section 18.4.4.070. See more findings below. Chapter 18.4.3 PARKING, ACCESS, AND CIRCULATION 18.4.3.040 Vehicle and Bicycle Quantity Standards Except as provided by section 18.4.3.030, the standard ratios required for parking are as follows, as are the maximum allowances for voluntarily provided off-street automobile spaces. Fractional spaces shall be rounded up to the next whole number. See also accessible parking space requirements in section 18.4.3.050. 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 20 Finding: No off-street vehicle parking spaces are proposed. There are presently no bike parking facilities provided on the site. The proposal provides for nine sheltered bike parking spaces. 18.4.3.070 Bicycle Parking Standards B. Bicycle Parking Design Standards. Finding: Bicycle parking will be located on the north side of the structure in a covered bike parking structure. Direct access to both the public right-of-way and the main entranceswill be provided to the storage area via walkways. Lighting will be provided in thebicycle parking area so that thefacilities isthoroughly illuminated and well-lit. The storage area will be surfaced with a minimum of two inches of hard surfacing (i.e., asphalt, concrete, pavers, or similar material) and will be level. This surface will be maintained in a smooth, durable, and well-drained condition. Bicycle parking, including rack installations, will conform to the minimum clearance standards as illustrated in Figure 18.4.3.070.B.6 and Figure 18.4.3.070.B.10.a. Bicycle parking racks will consist of inverted-U steel racks meeting the individual rack specifications as illustrated in Figure 18.4.3.070.C.1. 18.4.3.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation Finding: The development will incorporate a continuous walkway system that extends throughout the site and connects to future development phases as well as existing off-site sidewalks and open spaces, ensuring comprehensive pedestrian connectivity. The proposed four foot wide concretewalkways will replace dirt and paver stone footpaths that presently exist onsite. The design ensures safe, direct, and convenient pedestrian connections between primary building entrances and Granite Street. Walkways will be laid out with minimal deviation from direct routes, avoiding unnecessary detours to provide users with efficient pathways. Safety and convenience are prioritized, ensuring routes are free from hazards and offer a straightforward means of reaching destinations. Pathways will connect to the front door or primary entrances. Walkways will link all building entrances to each other where practicable, and also connect the bike parking, public and common spaces, and link off-site adjacent uses to the development. All walkway surfaces will be constructed from durable materials such as concrete, asphalt, or pavers. Four-foot-wide walkways are proposed to provide adequate space for pedestrian circulation between building entrances 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 21 and public street while staying within the permitted maximum lot coverage. There are a substantial number of large-stature trees, and the narrower pathways reduce the impacts to the trees. 18.4.4 LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, AND SCREENING 18.4.4.030 Landscaping and Screening Finding: The proposed street tree plan and the irrigation plan comply with the Irrigation and Water Conserving Landscaping requirements of the City of Ashland. Street trees shall be not less than a two-inch caliper. Street trees shall be located in the designated planting strip and be placed at the rate of one tree for every 30 feet of street frontage. No changes to the existing site landscaping are proposed. It will be pruned, weeded, and cleared of any dead or dying vegetation. No new landscaping within the site area is proposed. Areas where site disturbance has occurred will be reseeded with a native seed mix, but the majority of the site work is directly adjacent to the structure, and no plants are allowed within five feet so limited new planting will occur. 18.4.4.040 Recycling and Refuse Disposal Areas Finding: A common refuse area is proposed to be installed adjacent to the garage. Additionally, all recycling and refuse disposal areas will be adequately screened according to the provisions of section 18.4.4.030.G.1, ensuring these necessary facilities are visually discreet and blend seamlessly with the surrounding environment. 18.4.4.050 Outdoor Lighting Finding: Any outdoor lighting installations will consider the appropriate lighting levels for pedestrian safety, property identification, and crime prevention without exceeding necessary levels. Artificial lighting will be positioned to prevent direct illumination onto adjacent residential properties, maintaining privacy and reducing glare. 18.4.4.060 Fences and Walls Finding: No new fences are being proposed. The existing 3.5-foot-tall picket fence along the street will be repaired or replaced as necessary. A separate fence permit will be obtained to replace and fencing panels. 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 22 18.4.4.070 Open Space Finding: At least 8% of the total lot area will be open space. The open space and will be provided on the south side of the property. The property has substantial outdoor areas for use as open spaces as well as areas intended for private outdoor use by residents of individual dwelling units. Private open space includes decks, patios, porches, balconies, side and rear yards, and similar areas. There are pedestrian connections proposed through the development, leading to the entry of units and through the common areas. There are large-stature trees that are preserved in the existing yard area. These trees will remain in the common open space areas. Chapter 18.4.5 TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION 18.4.5.030 Tree Protection Finding: There are 22 trees greater than six inches in diameter at breast height on the subject property. The utmost care was taken to preserve as many of the large-stature trees on-site. No tree removal is proposed. The trees that are within 15 feet of the structure are proposed to have tree protection fencing installed as close to the dripline as possible while still allowing passage through the site and to allow for the construction of the pedestrian walkways.. The Tree Protection and Preservation plan provides the details of the six-foot fencing that will be installed before site disturbance for the new construction. Inspection of the fencing will be requested prior to the site work. Exception to Site Design Standards: Walkway Width Reduction: From 5 Feet to 4 Feet Special or Unique Circumstances: Presently, the walkways consist of irregular and o uneven paver stone and decomposed granite pathways. With the proposed site modifications, a four-foot wide concrete walkway is proposed. The existing spatial constraints and topographical nuances of the site necessitate a narrower walkway to preserve necessary circulation routes and building functionality. Minimum Necessary: Reducing the walkway width to 4 feet is the minimum change o required to maintain adequate pedestrian circulation without exceeding the maximum allowable floor area. Benefits vs. Impacts: This minor adjustment ensures efficient pedestrian flow, o supporting the development's operational requirements while maintaining harmony with surrounding properties. Not Self-Imposed: The need for this adjustment is directly related to the site's spatial o constraints rather than any previous modifications enacted by the applicant. 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 23 Conditional Use Permit 18.5.4.050 Approval Criteria 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 all standards 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. Finding: The use is a pre-existing, legal non-conforming eight unit apartment building in the single family residential zone. The apartments were constructed in 1924. The proposed conditional use permit request is to expand/enlarge the non-conforming front yard setback to allow the construction of front porches and a second-story bumpout at the same distance from the property line as the existing covered front porch. 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: Adequate utilities, including water, sewer, electricity, and storm drainage, are currently in place at the location. To the applicant’s knowledge, there are no public system deficiencies. 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. 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 construction of functional, useable outdoor space and increased floor area for a small apartment will not have any greater negative impact on the livability of the impact area than the development of the lot with a structure that meetsall setbacks of the zoning district. The porches and decks increase the livability of the structure. The structuresuse as a multifamily development have been occurring for more than 100 years, and the proposal does not modify that aspect of the site development. The Conditional Use Permit is to expand the non-conforming porch along the width of the structure and on the second story, allow for construction of a covered porch and a bump out of the bathroom of Unit #5. 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 24 a) Similarity in scale, bulk and coverage. Finding: The proposed reduced setback to allow for the construction of the front porches at the non- conforming setback and the bumpout of the front façadeof the structure on the secondfloor is similar in area in scale, bulk, or coverage than the existing structure and the proposed addition does not increase the maximum permitted floor area of a single structure beyond what is permitted by ordinance. b) Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit are considered beneficial regardless of the capacity of facilities. Finding: There is no more traffic generated by the proposed porch additions than the existing non- conforming eight unit development generates. c) Architectural compatibility with the impact area. Finding: See detailed architectural compatibility findings addressing the Historic District Design Standards and the Standards for Renovation on the previous pages. The widening of a front porch at a setback of less than 20 feet is common in the historic districts. Front porches, wrap- around porches, and second-story porches are architecturally compatible with the historic impact area. d) Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. Finding: The proposal will only generate small amounts of dust during construction, and then the use of the property will not generate dust, odor, or other environmental pollutants more than the allowed residential uses in the area create. e) Generation of noise, light, and glare. Finding: The use of the property as a multi-family residential will continue. The decreased front porch setback to allow for the wider front porch, second-story porches on the front façadeand the bump out will not create more noise than anticipated or expected in the residential neighborhood that directly abuts the downtown plaza. The proposed shrouded exterior patio lights will not increase light and glare beyond what is typical in aresidential zone. 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 25 f) The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the comprehensive plan. Finding: The proposed porches and bumpout will not have an impact on the development of the adjacent properties as envisioned in the comprehensive plan. g) Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. Finding: There are no other factors known to the applicant and project team that would affect the review of this application. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. Finding: The use of the property to expand an existing, non-conforming setback. Expansion and enlargement of a non-conforming structure are permitted with a conditional use permit approval. 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. b. R-1. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. Finding: The proposed front porches and front façadebump out are consistent with the standards for residential zones, except for the density standards, as those are pre-existing and not proposed to be changed. Attachments: Photographs of structure Existing Site Plan Proposed Site Plan Tree Protection Plan Street Tree Planting Plan Street Tree Irrigation Plan Proposed Exterior Elevations Floor Plans Bike Parking Detail 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 26 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 27 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 28 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 29 40 Granite Street Site Design Review & Conditional Use Permit Page | 30 29/5/3/161!Ijtupsjd!Ejtusjdu!Efwfmpqnfou! B/!Qvsqptf-!Bqqmjdbcjmjuz-!boe!Cbdlhspvoe/! Gjhvsf!29/5/3/161/!Ijtupsjd!Ejtusjdu!Pwfsmbz! C/!Ijtupsjd!Ejtusjdu!Eftjho!Tuboebset/ SFDPNNFOEFE!BWPJE! SFDPNNFOEFE!BWPJE! SFDPNNFOEFE!BWPJE! SFDPNNFOEFE!BWPJE! SFDPNNFOEFE!BWPJE! SFDPNNFOEFE!BWPJE! SFDPNNFOEFE!BWPJE! SFDPNNFOEFE!BWPJE! SFDPNNFOEFE!BWPJE! SFDPNNFOEFE!BWPJE! SFDPNNFOEFE!BWPJE! SFDPNNFOEFE!BWPJE! D/!Sfibcjmjubujpo!Tuboebset!gps!Fyjtujoh!Cvjmejoht!boe!Beejujpot/! Uif!Btimboe!Mboe!Vtf!Psejobodf!jt!dvssfou!uispvhi!Psejobodf!433:-!qbttfe!Efdfncfs!2:-!3134/! Windows HISTORIC DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HISTORIC BUILDING BRIEF No. 2 General Guidelines Retain and repair whenever possible; replace original windows only when too deteriorated to repair. For best energy efficiency, weather-strip windows and use storm windows. UƌƼƒğƷĻ ŭƚğƌ źƭ sustainability and stewardship of historic components and materials. History Windows are an important character defining feature of a building. Large sheets of glass were expensive to produce, so early windows had ƭƒğƌƌ ƦğƓĻƭ ƭĻƦğƩğƷĻķ ĬǤ Ǟƚƚķ ƒǒƓƼƓƭ; oǝĻƩ ƼƒĻ ƌğƩŭĻƩ ƦğƓĻƭ ǞĻƩĻ ǒƭĻķ. ƌƼƒğƷĻƌǤͲ ƓǒƒĬĻƩ ğƓķ ğƩƩğƓŭĻƒĻƓƷ ƚŅ ƦğƓĻƭ ĬĻĭğƒĻ ƷŷĻ ƚǝĻƩƩźķźƓŭ design element. Originally constructed of wood because it was readily available and easy to work. Most early windows were double-hung and were orieƓƷĻķ ǝĻƩƼĭğƌƌǤ Ʒƚ ğƌƌƚǞ ŅƚƩ ŭƚƚķ ƌźŭŷƷ ğƓķ ǝĻƓƼƌğƼƚƓ - ŷƚƷ ğźƩ Ǟƚǒƌķ ĻƭĭğƦĻ ƚǒƷ ƷŷĻ ƷƚƦ ğƓķ ĭƚƚƌĻƩ ğźƩ Ǟƚǒƌķ ŤƚǞ źƓ ƷŷĻ Ĭƚdžƚƒ͵ TŷĻǤ ƚũĻƓ appear in pairs or triplets to increase overall window size. Windows were set into walls Ʒƚ ķĻĭƩĻğƭĻ ƦƚƷĻƓƼğƌ ŅƚƩ ǞğƷĻƩ źƓŋƌƷƩğƼƚƓ ğƓķ Ʒƚ ğƌƌƚǞ ƭƦğĭĻ ŅƚƩ ƚƦĻƩğƼƓŭ ƒĻĭŷğƓisms, usually ropes and pulleys. Repair and Maintenance Properly maintained wood windows have greatly extended service and contribute to a build historic character; it is not unusual for them to work for 150 years or more. Repairs can be labor intensive, but are typically not complicated. If considering replacement, think twice; ƒƚƓĻǤ źƭ ƚũĻƓ ĬĻdžĻƩ ƭƦĻƓƷ ƚƓ ƩĻƦğźƩźƓŭ ĻǣźƭƼƓŭ ǞźƓķƚǞƭ. Badly deteriorated windows can be restored by applying consolidants ƚƩ Ǟƚƚķ ƦǒLjĻƭ to ƭƦƌźƷͲ ĭŷĻĭƉĻķ ƚƩ ƩƚLjƓŭ wood. Windows that cannot be stabilized may require replacing parts of the original window. Replacement Windows Replacement of original windows is ğ ƌğƭƷ ƩĻƭƚƩƷ ğũĻƩ ğƌƌ ƩĻƦğźƩ ƦƚƭƭźĬźƌźƼĻƭ ŷğǝĻ ĬĻĻƓ ĻǣƦƌƚƩĻķ. If windows are missing or not reparable, match replacements as closely as possible in terms of size, materials, profile and ƦğƓĻ ĭƚƓŋŭǒƩğƼƚƓ. If rĻƦƌğĭźƓŭ ǞźƓķƚǞƭ ǞźƷŷ ƒǒƓƼƓƭ, use ĻźƷŷĻƩ ğƓ ĻǣƷĻƩƓğƌ ƒǒƓƼƓ ƚƩ ƷƩǒĻ ķivided light window. TŷĻƭĻ ƒǒƓƼƓƭ ğƩĻ ƚũĻƓ ƒǒĭŷ ǞźķĻƩ ğƓķ ŤğdžĻƩ ƷŷğƓ ƷŷĻ ƚƩźŭźƓğƌƭ so they change the look and reduce glass coverage. Avoid i they depth like the original window Replacement windows have a much shorter life span than original windows and may require replacement in just a few years, ƚũĻƓ ĬĻŅƚƩĻ źƓƭƷğƌƌğƼƚƓ cost is recovered in energy savings. This project is supported in part by a grant from the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, Oregon Parks & Recreation Department, funded by the National Park Service through the National Historic Preservation Act. Windows Vi with historic buildings; they cant be worked like wood painted so they are ƚũĻƓ stark white, a color not usually found on historic buildings; they yellow, crack, and shrink ƚǝĻƩ ƼƒĻ ķǒĻ Ʒƚ ultraviolet light exposure. ‘źƓķƚǞƭ źƓ !ķķźƼƚƓƭ Use wood, aluminum clad wood or fiberglass. They should be single/double-hung sash or casement źƓ ƚƦĻƩğƼƚƓ. Line up together, generally at the top of the opening, for each story of a building. hƩźĻƓƷğƼƚƓ ƭŷƚǒƌķ ĬĻ ǝĻƩƼĭğƌͲ that is, taller than they ğƩĻ ǞźķĻͲ ǞźƷŷ ğ ƒźƓźƒǒƒ ƩğƼƚ ǝĻƩƼĭğƌƌǤ Ʒƚ horizontally of 1.5 to 1. If a wider opening is ƦƩĻŅĻƩƩĻķͲ ƦğźƩƭ ƚŅ ǝĻƩƼĭğƌ ǞźƓķƚǞƭ ƭŷƚǒƌķ be used. IğǝĻ ğ ЊΉЊ ƌźŭŷƷ ĭƚƓŋŭǒƩğƼƚƓͲ ğƭ ƌğƩŭĻ ğƩĻğƭ ƚŅ ŭƌğǩźƓŭ are readily available, so ƒǒƓƼƓƭ ğƩĻ ƓƚƷ ƓĻĻķĻķ͵ They should be surrounded by exterior trim on the top and sides, with trim at least four inches wide. Inset a minimum depth of two inches from the finished exterior wall. Energy Efficiency Most heat is lost ĬĻĭğǒƭĻ ƚŅ ğźƩ źƓŋƌƷƩğƼƚƓ between the window sash and the frame, not through the glass͵ 5ĻƭƦźƷĻ ǞźķĻƭƦƩĻğķ ƒźƭĭƚƓĭĻƦƼƚƓƭͲ replacing old windows with new, double-glazed windows will not save money, will not significantly increase the energy efficiency of a house, and will probably cost more in the long term. Appropriate weather-ƭƷƩźƦƦźƓŭͲ źƓƭǒƌğƼng the window frame cavity and installing sash locks will significantly ƩĻķǒĭĻ ğźƩ źƓŋƌƷƩğƼƚƓ͵ Exterior storm windows should be considered as thermally efficient, cost-ĻňĻĭƼǝĻ and reversible ƭƚƌǒƼƚƓƭ ŅƚƩ ŷźƭƷƚƩźĭ ĬǒźƌķźƓŭƭ, as they allow for ƷŷĻ ƩĻƷĻƓƼƚƓ ƚŅ ƚƩźŭźƓğƌ ǞźƓķƚǞƭ͵ Interior storm windows can work, but ƷŷĻƩĻ źƭ ƦƚƷĻƓƼğƌ ŅƚƩ ĭƚƓķĻƓƭğƼƚƓ ķğƒğŭĻ͵ Storm windows should be the same size as the uƓķĻƩƌǤźƓŭ ǞźƓķƚǞ͵ ağdžĻ ŋƓźƭŷ anodized or coated frames are best, preferably coated or painted to match the ĻǣźƭƼƓŭ ĭƚƌƚƩ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ǞźƓķƚǞƭ͵ !ķķźƼƚƓğƌ wĻğķźƓŭ bğƼƚƓğƌ tğƩƉ {ĻƩǝźĭĻ tƩĻƭĻƩǝğƼƚƓ .ƩźĻŅƭ: No. 3: Conserving Energy in Historic Buildings www.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief03.htm No. 9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows www.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief09.htm ‘źƓķƚǞ tƩĻƭĻƩǝğƼƚƓ DǒźķğƓĭĻͲ ‘ğƭŷźƓŭƷƚƓ 5ĻƦğƩƷƒĻƓƷ ƚŅ !ƩĭŷğĻƚƌƚŭǤ ğƓķ IźƭƷƚƩźĭ tƩĻƭĻƩǝğƼƚƓͲ ŷdžƦʹΉΉǞǞǞ͵ķğŷƦ͵Ǟğ͵ŭƚǝΉǞźƓķƚǞ-ƦƩĻƭĻƩǝğƼƚƓ-guidance The Real Cost of Removing Historic Windows, ŷdžƦʹΉΉǞǞǞ͵ğƦƼ͵ƚƩŭΉƦǒĬƌźĭğƼƚƓƭΉtğƭƷ-.ǒƌƌĻƼƓ- !ƩƼĭƌĻƭΉ{Ļķƚǝźĭ-36-4.pdf Second efs contact: www.ashland.or.us ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION - Tel: 541-488-5305 - 51 Winburn Way - Ashland, Oregon 97520 - Exterior Materials HISTORIC DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HISTORIC BUILDING BRIEF No. 3 General Guidelines Properly maintained, wood siding outperforms wood ƭǒĬƭƼƷǒƷĻƭ ğƓķ źƭ the best choice. Cement fiber planks are a good choice for new ğķķźƼƚƓƭ ƚƩ ĭƚƓƭƷƩǒĭƼƚƓ. Paint and most roofing materials are intended to be replaced periodically and therefore more flexibility can ĬĻ ŭźǝĻƓ ŅƚƩ ƭǒĬƭƼƷǒƷĻ ĭƚƌƚƩƭ ğƓķ ƒğƷĻƩźğƌƭ. History Horizontal wood siding and shingles were the most common exterior wall materials. Wood was used because of its abundance in the region and ease of shaping. The first wood siding was split clapboards, then sawn clapboards. By the early 1900s various ƦğdžĻƩƓƭ ǞĻƩĻ ƒğķĻ źƓ ğ ǝğƩźĻƷǤ ƚŅ ƦƩƚŋƌĻƭ ƚũĻƓ ĭğƌƌĻķ ķƩƚƦͲ ƩǒƭƼĭͲ ƚƩ ƓƚǝĻƌƷǤ ƭźķźƓŭ͵ Several Victorian-ĻƩğ ğƩĭŷźƷĻĭƷǒƩğƌ ƭƷǤƌĻƭ ǒƭĻķ Ǟƚƚķ ƭŷźƓŭƌĻƭ ƭğǞƓ źƓ ǝğƩźƚǒƭ ƦğdžĻƩƓƭ ƭǒĭŷ ğƭ octagonal ğƓķ ķźğƒƚƓķ ƦğdžĻƩƓƭ. Mineral fiber (asbestos) shingles were common in the 1930s and 40s and were a fairly durable, maintenance free siding. Siding Types Wood siding, both historically and today, is typically made from cedar or fir and installed with common nails. It is the most durable siding color is easily changed; blemishes can be sanded or filled. Brick should not be painted. Mineral fiber shingles can be painted but break easily. LƓƭƷğƌƌğƼƚƓ ƚŅ ǝźƓǤƌͲ ƒĻƷğƌ ƚƩ ƒźƓĻƩğƌ ŋĬĻƩ ƭźķźƓŭ ƚũĻƓ ƩĻƨǒźƩĻƭ ƩĻƒƚǝğƌ ƚŅ ƚƩźŭźƓğƌ ķĻĭƚƩğƼǝĻ ĻƌĻƒĻƓƷƭ ƭǒĭŷ as cornices, brackets, and window trim. Vinyl and metal is the least flexible material. It cannot be repaired, painted or replaced in small ƭĻĭƼƚƓƭ͵ źƓǤƌ ǞğƩƦƭ ğƓķ ĭƩğĭƉƭ ƚǝĻƩ ƼƒĻ͵ aĻƷğƌ ĻğƭźƌǤ ƭŷƚǞƭ źƒƦƩźƓƷ ŅƩƚƒ ƷƚƭƭĻķ ĬğƭĻĬğƌƌƭ ƚƩ lawn mower rocks. /ĻƒĻƓƷ ŋĬĻƩ ƭźķźƓŭ ƦƩƚķǒĭƷƭ ğƩĻ ķǒƩğĬƌĻͲ ĭğƓ ĬĻ ƦğźƓƷĻķ ğƓķ ƚũĻƓ ƒźƒźĭ ƚƩźŭźƓğƌ Ǟƚƚķ ƭźķźƓŭ͵ LŅ used, smooth-ŅğĭĻķ ƦƌğƓƉƭ ğƩĻ ƒƚƭƷ ĭƚƒƦğƼĬƌĻ ǞźƷŷ ŷźƭƷƚƩźĭ ĬǒźƌķźƓŭƭ͵ ‘ƚƚķ-textured planks or panels do not mimic historic wood siding as it was always milled smooth. Large panels of fiber siding do not have adequate shadow lines and leave inappropriate joint lines. Maintenance Check regularly for loose bricks or deteriorated mortar ƷǒĭƉ ƦƚźƓƼƓŭ ƒğǤ ĬĻ ƩĻƨǒźƩĻķ͵ Previously unpainted brick should not be painted, źƷ ĻƓĭƚǒƩğŭĻƭ ķĻƷĻƩźƚƩğƼƚƓ ğƓķ ŷźķĻƭ ƭǒĬƷƌĻ ĭƚƌƚƩ ğƓķ ƷĻǣƷǒƩĻ ķźňĻƩĻƓĭĻƭ͵ LŅ ĬƩźĭƉ ŷğƭ ĬĻĻƓ ƦğźƓƷĻķͲ ƷŷĻ ĬĻƭƷ ĭƚƌƚƩ ĭŷƚźĭĻ ŅƚƩ ƩĻƦğźƓƼƓŭ źƭ ƚƓĻ that matches original color of the brick. This project is supported in part by a grant from the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, Oregon Parks & Recreation Department, funded by the National Park Service through the National Historic Preservation Act. Exterior Materials ağźƓƷğźƓ ƩĻŭǒƌğƩ ƦğźƓƷ ƭĭŷĻķǒƌĻ ğƓķ ƩĻƦƌğĭĻ ķğƒğŭĻķ ƚƩ ƩƚdžĻƓ Ĭƚğrds as soon as discovered. Flaking or badly adhered paint should be removed. Oil-based primers are best for old wood. Appropriate methods for paint removal are scraping, sanding, thermal and mild chemical strippers. LƓğƦƦƩƚƦƩźğƷĻ ƒĻƷŷƚķƭ ğƩĻ ƭğƓķĬƌğƭƼng, high pressure power washing, blow torch, or abrasive cleaning and stripping. These usually cause permanent damage to siding materials. źƓǤƌ ğƓķ ƒĻƷğƌ ƭźķźƓŭ ƚũĻƓ ƷƩğƦƭ ƒƚźƭƷǒƩĻ ƩĻƭǒƌƼƓŭ źƓ ŷźķķĻƓ ķğƒğŭĻ Ʒƚ Ǟğƌƌƭ. If vinyl or metal is damaged it usǒğƌƌǤ ƩĻƨǒźƩĻƭ ƩĻƦƌğĭĻƒĻƓƷ ƚŅ ĻƓƼƩĻ Ǟğƌƌ ğƓķ ƚĭĭğƭźƚƓğƌƌǤ ĻƓƼƩĻ ĬǒźƌķźƓŭ͵ Paint Colors LƷğƌźğƓğƷĻ ğƓķ vǒĻĻƓ !ƓƓĻ ƭƷǤƌĻ ŷƚǒƭĻƭ ǞĻƩĻ ƷǤƦźĭğƌƌǤ ƦğźƓƷĻķ źƓ ƒǒƌƼ-color schemes in deep rich ŷǒĻƭ͵ ŷƩĻĻ Ʒƚ ŅƚǒƩ ĭƚƌƚƩƭ ǞĻƩĻ ǒƭĻķͲ ƭƚƒĻƼƒĻƭ ǞźƷŷ Ļğĭŷ ŤƚƚƩ ƚƩ ƒğƷĻƩźğƌ ğ ķźňĻƩĻƓƷ ĭƚƌƚƩ͵ ŷĻ base was usually darkest, with lighter colors on top. Window sash were ƚũĻƓ black or dark red. Colonial Revival houses were typically light color (gray, yellow or tan) trimmed with white or cream. ‘źƓķƚǞ ƭğƭŷĻƭ ǞĻƩĻ ƚũĻƓ ƦğźƓƷĻķ ĬƌğĭƉ ƚƩ ķğƩƉ ŭƩĻĻƓ͵ /ƩğũƭƒğƓ ŷƚǒƭĻƭ ǞĻƩĻ ǒƭǒğƌƌǤ ƦğźƓƷĻķ źƓ ǞğƩƒͲ Ʃźĭŷ ĻğƩth tones. Wood siding or shingles were ƚũĻƓ ƭƷğźƓĻķ ķğƩƉ ĬƩƚǞƓ ƚƩ ŭƩĻĻƓ͵ Ʃźƒ Ǟğƭ ƌźŭŷƷĻƩͲ ƚũĻƓ źǝƚƩǤͲ ƷğƓ ƚƩ ĭƩĻğƒ͵ ‘źƓķƚǞ ƭğƭŷĻƭ varied greatly, and were red, black or the trim color. Tudor/Mission/Spanish Revival houses had light walls with contraƭƼƓŭ ƷƩźƒ ĭƚƌƚƩƭ ğƓķ ƩĻķ ƼƌĻ ŅƚƩ Mission and Spanish Revival roofs. Historic paint colors should be documented through paint analysis if possible. Roofing Most houses were originally roofed with wood shakes/shingles from old-growth trees and lasted many years. Modern shakes/shingles have much shorter life span. City does not allow wood shakes/shingles due to fire danger in region. Slate shingles are durable and have a long life span, but were not commonly used during historic period. Should only be used on buildings that had them historically. High style metal shingles and standing seam roofs are durable and have long life span, but were also not commonly used historically. Corrugated metal panels were common on outbuildings beginning in 1920s. TheyĻ ǒƼƌźƷğƩźğƓ ğƓķ ƭŷƚǒƌķ ĬĻ ǒƭĻķ ƚƓ secondary buildings. Standing seam metal roofs are not appropriate. The minimal texture and bright colors look out of place in historic neighborhoods. !ƭƦŷğƌƷ ƚƩ ĭƚƒƦƚƭźƼƚƓ ƭŷźƓŭƌĻƭ ĬĻĭğƒĻ ĭƚƒƒƚƓ źƓ ƷŷĻ ЊВЌЉƭ͵ aƚķĻƩƓͲ ğƩĭŷźƷĻĭƷǒƩğƌ ƭƷǤƌĻ ğƭƦŷğƌƷ ƭŷźƓŭƌĻƭ ğƩĻ ĬĻdžĻƩ ƭƚƌǒƼƚƓƭ źƓ ŷźƭƷƚƩźĭ ķźƭƷƩźĭƷƭ ƷŷğƓ ƷŷĻ ŤğƷͲ ƷŷƩĻĻ ƷğĬ ƭŷźƓŭƌĻƭͲ ğƭ ƷŷĻǤ ƒƚƩĻ closely mimic historic wood shakes/shingles. !ķķźƼƚƓğƌ Reading bğƼƚƓğƌ tğƩƉ {ĻƩǝźĭĻ tƩĻƭĻƩǝğƼƚƓ .ƩźĻŅs No. 8: Aluminum/Vinyl Siding on Historic Buildings, www.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief08.htm No. 10: Exterior Paint Problems on Woodwork, www.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief10.htm Wood Guidelines, ŷdžƦʹΉΉǞǞǞ͵ƓƦƭ͵ŭƚǝΉŷƦƭΉƷƦƭΉƭƷğƓķŭǒźķĻΉƩĻƭƷƚƩĻΉƩĻƭƷƚƩĻΗǞƚƚķ͵ŷƷƒ Siding Profiles, ŷdžƦʹΉΉǞǞǞ͵ǞǞƦğ͵ƚƩŭΉƦğdžĻƩƓƭΉƭĻĭƼƚƓƭΉŭЊЏ͵ƦķŅ Third ic buildings. For additional briefs contact: www.ashland.or.us ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION - Tel: 541-488-5305 - 51 Winburn Way - Ashland, Oregon 97520 - !ķķźƼƚƓƭ HISTORIC DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HISTORIC BUILDING BRIEF No. 4 General Guidelines Preserve historic features and materials of the original building. Design ğķķźƼƚƓƭ ƭƚ ƷŷğƷ źƷ źƭ ĭƌĻğƩ źƷ źƭ ğƓ ğķķźƼƚƓ and not part of the original building. Design ğķķźƼƚƓƭ ƭƚ ƷŷğƷ ƷŷĻǤ ğƩĻ ĭƚƒƦğƼĬƌĻ ǞźƷŷ the original building. History aƚƭƷ ŷźƭƷƚƩźĭ ĬǒźƌķźƓŭƭ ğƩĻ ĭƚƒƦźƌğƼƚƓƭ ƚŅ ƒǒƌƼƦƌĻ ğķķźƼƚƓƭ ƚǝĻƩ ƼƒĻ. Families grew and added new bedrooms or bathrooms, or businesses needed more floor space. !ķķźƼƚƓƭ ŷğǝe always been placed to the rear or less prominent side. Garages started as separate buildings but were incorporated beginning in the 1920s. OũĻƓ ƦƌğĭĻķ on the side of houses; źƓ ŷźƌƌǤ ƌƚĭğƼƚƓƭ they ǞĻƩĻ ƚũĻƓ ƷǒĭƉĻķ ǒƓķĻƩƓĻğƷŷ͵ !ķķźƼƚƓƭ ƷŷğƷ ğƩĻ ŷźƭƷƚƩźĭ ƭŷƚǒƌķ ĬĻ ƉĻƦƷ͵ Placement and Size Locate on an inconspicuous side or rear. !ķķźƼƚƓƭ ƭŷƚǒƌķ ƓƚƷ ĬĻ ƦƌğĭĻķ ƚƓ ƷŷĻ ŅƩƚƓƷ nor a prominent side visible from a public right of way. Must meet current Ashland codes on setback ğƓķ ƌƚƷ ĭƚǝĻƩğŭĻ ƩğƼƚƭ͵ Generally, one and two story historic buildings ƭŷƚǒƌķ ƓƚƷ ŭĻƷ ğƓ ğķķźƼƚƓğƌ ŤƚƚƩ ğƭ źƷ ĭŷğƓŭĻƭ the character of the building and street. When used, aķķźƼƚƓğƌ ŤƚƚƩƭ ƭŷƚǒƌķ ĬĻ ƭĻƷ ĬğĭƉ from the front and any prominent side. The rule of thumb is that a new upper floor should not be visible from ground level across the street. !ķķźƼƚƓƭ ƭŷƚǒƌķ ƓƚƷ ƚǝĻƩƦƚǞĻƩ ƷŷĻ ƚƩźŭźƓğƌ ƭƷƩǒĭƷǒƩĻ͵ LŅ ğ ƌğƩŭĻƩ ğķķźƼƚƓ źƭ ƦƌğƓƓĻķ źƷ ƭŷƚǒƌķ ĬĻ broken up into smaller segments so that the original building is dominant. Should you match the style of the original building? ğĬƌĻ Ʒƚ źķĻƓƼŅǤ ƷŷĻ ŷźƭƷƚƩźĭ ĬǒźƌķźƓŭͲ ğƓķ ŅƚƩ ƷŷĻ ğķķźƼƚƓ Ʒƚ ĬĻ secondary. Similar materials, similar building elements, or similar sizes ƒƚƭƷ ƚũĻƓ ƒğƉĻ ğƓ ğķķźƼƚƓ ĭƚƒƦğƼĬƌĻ͵ .ǒƷ ƭźƒƦƌźŋĭğƼƚƓ źƭ źƒƦƚƩƷğƓƷ ƭƚ ƷŷğƷ ƷŷĻ ŷźƭƷƚƩźĭ ĬǒźƌķźƓŭ ƦƌğǤƭ ƷŷĻ ƦƩƚƒźƓĻƓƷ ƩƚƌĻ͵ /ƚƓƓĻĭƼƚƓƭ ĬĻƷǞĻĻƓ ƓĻǞ ğƓķ ƚƌķ ƭŷƚǒƌķ ĬĻ ĭƌĻğƩƌǤ ķiscernible. This can be achieved by ƭĻLjƓŭ the new wall plane back from the old or using a transparent connector space between the two. /ƚƒƦğƼĬźƌźƷǤ ǞźƷŷ ƷŷĻ ĻǣźƭƼƓŭ ŷźƭƷƚƩźĭ ķźƭƷƩźĭƷ ğƓķ ƭƷƩĻĻƷƭĭğƦĻͲ ƓƚƷ ƆǒƭƷ ƷŷĻ ŷźƭƷƚƩźĭ ĬǒźƌķźƓŭ, is also ĭƩźƼĭğƌ. This project is supported in part by a grant from the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, Oregon Parks & Recreation Department, funded by the National Park Service through the National Historic Preservation Act. !ķķźƼƚƓƭ !ķķźƼƚƓƭ ƭŷƚǒƌķ ƩĻŤĻĭƷ ƷŷĻ ƚǝĻƩğƌƌ ƒğƭƭźƓŭͲ ƩƚƚŅ ƭŷğƦĻͲ ĬğǤ ƭƦğĭźƓŭͲ ĭƚƩƓźĭĻ ƌźƓĻƭ ğƓķ ĬǒźƌķźƓŭ materials. {ǒĭĭĻƭƭŅǒƌ ğķķźƷźƚƓ ŅƚƩƒ bƚƓΏĭƚƒƦğƷźĬƌĻ ğķķźƷźƚƓ ŅƚƩƒ źƦƭ ŅƚƩ ğ ƭǒĭĭĻƭƭŅǒƌ ğķķźƼƚƓ \[źƒźƷ ƷŷĻ ƭźǩĻ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ĭƚƓƓĻĭƼƚƓ ĬĻƷǞĻĻƓ ƷŷĻ ƚƌķ ğƓķ ƓĻǞ͵ ŷźƭ ƩĻķǒĭĻƭ ƷŷĻ ğƒƚǒƓƷ ƚŅ ŷźƭƷƚƩźĭ ƒğƷĻƩźğƌ ƌƚƭƷ ğƓķ ĭƌĻğƩƌǤ ķźƭƼƓŭǒźƭŷĻƭ ĬĻƷǞĻĻƓ ƷŷĻ ƚƌķ ĬǒźƌķźƓŭ ğƓķ ƷŷĻ ƓĻǞ ğķķźƼƚƓ͵ ƼƌźǩĻ ĻǣźƭƼƓŭ ķƚƚƩƭ ƚƩ ĻƓƌğƩŭĻ ǞźƓķƚǞƭ Ʒƚ ƒğƉĻ ƷŷĻ ĭƚƓƓĻĭƼƚƓƭ͵ !ǝƚźķ ķĻƭźŭƓƭ ƷŷğƷ ǒƓźŅǤ ƷŷĻ ƚƩźŭźƓğƌ ğƓķ ƷŷĻ ğķķźƼƚƓ ğƭ ğ ƭźƓŭƌĻ ğƩĭŷźƷĻĭƷǒƩğƌ ǞŷƚƌĻ ΛƭĻĻ źƌƌǒƭƷƩğƼƚƓ Ʒƚ ƩźŭŷƷΜ. Use new building materials in the same color range as the original. Base the size the original building. Minimize loss of historic fabric from the original building. !ķķźƼƚƓğƌ wĻğķźƓŭ bğƼƚƓğƌ tğƩƉ {ĻƩǝźĭĻ tƩĻƭĻƩǝğƼƚƓ .ƩźĻŅ bƚ͵ 14ʹ bĻǞ 9ǣƷĻƩźƚƩ !ķķźƼƚƓƭ Ʒƚ IźƭƷƚƩźĭ .ǒźƌķźƓŭƭʹ tƩĻƭĻƩǝğƼƚƓ /ƚƓĭĻƩƓƭͲ www.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief14.htm llustrated Guidelines for , ŷdžƦʹΉΉǞǞǞ͵ĭƩ͵ƓƦƭ͵ŭƚǝΉŷƦƭΉƷƦƭΉƭƷğƓķŭǒźķĻΉƩĻŷğĬΉƩĻŷğĬΗğƦƦƩƚğĭŷ͵ŷƷƒ 5źƭƷƩźĭƷ ƚŅ /ƚƌǒƒĬźğ IźƭƷƚƩźĭ tƩĻƭĻƩǝğƼƚƓ DǒźķĻƌźƓĻƭͳ !ķķźƼƚƓƭ Ʒƚ IźƭƷƚƩźĭ .ǒźƌķźƓŭƭͲ ŷdžƦʹΉΉǞǞǞ͵ĭŷƩƭ͵ƚƩŭΉķƚĭǒƒĻƓƷƭΉIthіЋЉķƚĭƭΉ!ķķźƼƚƓƭ͵ƦķŅ .ĻƓƓźƓŭƷƚƓͲ ĻƩƒƚƓƷ tƩĻƭĻƩǝğƼƚƓ DǒźķĻƌźƓĻƭʹ !ķķźƼƚƓƭͲ ŷdžƦʹΉΉǞǞǞ͵ĬĻƓƓźƓŭƷƚƓ͵ĭƚƒΉŷƦĭΉƦķŅƭΉźƒĻΗğƓķΗtƌğĭĻΉğķķźƼƚƓƭ͵ƦķŅ Fourth in a series of educational briefs to encourage successful rehabilitation of Ashland www.ashland.or.us ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION - Tel: 541-488-5305 - 51 Winburn Way - Ashland, Oregon 97520 - shelby@scharendesignstudio.com jeff.dahle@council.ashland.or.us deborah.delaunay@gmail.com Derek.Severson@ashland.or.us ashlandoregon@gmail.com regan.trapp@ashland.or.us lisaverner815@icloud.com Kaylynnrepp@gmail.com skwhippet@charter.net bill@ashlandhome.net b e trskib@aol.com W - t l s i i a L M C - p i E A h P s H r 6 667 675 2222 e 222 //// /// 111 0000 m b 333 r 3333 /// //// e 222 m T1114444 e n o M s i a i L n e o i m s y s a e i Nn nt m n u r r n e o a ero mo dl s r p s n ap r o e in yi r o tp o h ep o ifa D C b t ei p t e v a scs u i l y L i be r n h srip g e SS l ih r h T ia n k aS eei n ye i a r c L o S n n W R m i k n V b on mBD f ya l e y f r E n f mu b r m mt eg ra cf l a i l a o o e e s d i ahate l e re i CBSTESKDLPJCDSRA