Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-07-07 Historic MINASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes July 7, 1999 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:40 pm by Jim Lewis. Members present were Skibby, Bailey, Lewis, Maser, Chambers, Steele, Anderson. Staff present were Knox and Hanks. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Skibby noted that the design review section of the previous minutes should be changed to indicate elevation requirements to be 1/4 inch equals one foot rather than 1/4 equals 10 feet originally noted. A motion was made to approve the minutes with the noted change, a second was given by Skibby and the motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Action 99-068 Conditional Use Permit 174 Church Mark & Goozel Dyer Knox stated that this application is for a transfer of ownership of an already approved travelers accommodation and explained the reason for the requirement for a transfer of ownership to go through the CUP process. The primary intent is to provide a review of the CUP as to its adherence to the conditions of approval and to provide a hearing for neighbors who may have comments about its operation. The process also provides the new owners with a clear understanding of the conditions that have been placed on the property and the operation of the travelers accommodation. Steele made a motion to approve, with a second from Bailey. The motion was passed with a unanimous vote. Planning Action 99-075 Site Review 665 A St Patricia Murphy Knox provided the Commission with a summary report of the project stating that this application was heard at last month's meeting with several changes made by the applicant in response to last month's review. The project consists of a new 4,000 square foot commercial building to house Brightenburg also quoted from the staff report design standard 4,C. 1 O-New Construction traditional architecture yet enhances the nature of the historic district can be used. He feels he and the applicant strove to meet these standards. The building isn't poorly massed, it provides elegance to the entry and is not going to be as dramatic as it appears in the elevation drawings, due to the difference in where the building is viewed by people at street level to that of the more fiat elevation drawings. Brightenburg also noted that the most recent staff report didn't address positive feedback that was received at last meeting. Murphy followed Brightenburg stating that she is very emotional about the project and has been working on it for more than four years. She stated that she willing to cooperate and resolve issues. A lot of time and money has been invested for a project that she feels falls inside the guidelines. Two other stucco buildings have been approved in the time since first starting the project. Staff told her that a mission style would be appropriate. Another building was approved with a dome. She wants the same style of the natatorium and stated that it is not a dome, but a barrel and doesn't understand why staff and Commission feel there has been no precedence set for this type of design. Compromises made to make the project work to this point. The dome is centerpiece, mainly from Frank Clark's work and is not grandiose, but has personality and historical importance. Skibby asked about the coloring of the roof of the barrel and Murphy responded that it will match the building, which will be tan\gray Maser inquired about the material for the roof, whether it will be the same as the body of the building and Murphy responded affirmatively stating that the top of the dome will be stucco. Skibby - observation- Victorian houses with round roof for patio - highlighting entry. Bailey questioned the lines across dome roof in the drawings. Brightenburg responded that the lines are to show the curve rather than any type of material. Maser also inquired about the material of the signs shown on the building. Murphy responded that they will be a stucco material which can be removed from the building, i.e. they will not be cast into the building stucco. Bailey commented that she agrees with Skibby on arch change to minimize the sight of the dome-like roof and noted that the old Junior High and High School have round roof features and she would have problems if the scale of this particular dome were larger. Skibby again reiterated that, overall, it is a well designed building and reminded Commissioners to look at scale when making their determinations. Knox warned of looking at design features of buildings that are not around anymore, where do we stop. The real concern is what the decision means for future applications. mineral baths. The project has a multiple year history in which it has been both denied and approved in differing forms. The new proposal before the Commission is a good one overall. Changes have been made in the parking lot location, the building is more storefront in nature from last design. The end result of the relatively minor changes is a better overall plan according to planning staff. The only staff concern is barrel/dome at the main entrance. This could be defined as an addition of new elements in the area, but design standards dictate otherwise. An example of a new design element that would not fit within the standards include a church steeple on a building that has no historical relevance or some contemporary element not in existence in the area. The new feature brings with it potential problems in future developments as setting some sort of precedence. Knox requested Commission to look at the criteria to determine whether this feature would create opportunity for future applications to expand on the design feature and create future problems in the consistent interpretation of the site design criteria. Skibby noted that the plans show the stated changes, but the watercolor drawings don't show these changes. Skibby also noted that the changes made to the windows were for the better. Knox stated that the windows provide for future changes to the current window designs. Skibby questioned the applicant about the barrel\dome feature at the entrance about the intended result of the feature, whether the effect was for the interior or exterior look. Murphy responded that the exterior look of the feature is the most important, but light will come through to some of the interior space. Skibby noted that he would prefer the arch at the from of the barrel\dome to be higher to better conceal the dome roof effect. Chambers requested to review the photos of other natatorium and buildings submitted at the last meeting, which were passed around by the applicant Knox again stated the design criteria detailing the use of new design elements. Anderson stated that the use of the structure is a factor in evaluating the design criteria, and that it is not without precedence. Skibby noted that the overall scale of the structure is small in comparison to next structure, which alleviates some of his concern over the barrel/dome. Doyle Brightenburg, designer for the project made a short presentation stating that the primary change from last months review is the windows, which may be screened from the inside because of use of the interior space use, but no blank wall will be exposed to the street. He feels that the changes in the windows were a good solution. Maser feels that the building is appropriate - styled on natatorium, but is concerned in general about the round features throughout town and wondered if down the road, will it be appropriate? Chambers stated that he likes it, it makes a statement, it is bold, likes facade up a little would be good but can live with it the way it is. Even unbuilt domes are part of history, but staffs point is valid. He also noted that he appreciates the changes that were made through the process. Steele stated she has a problem with arch of dome. Making the dome lower or arch higher would be better. Her concerns are purely aesthetic, noting that it doesn't seem to fit, but understands the attempt. Photos of natatorium are different because of overall scale of the different buildings. Steele inquired if the spa will really use mineral water. Murphy stated yes. Anderson commented that he looks at projects and also looks at architect designing the project. He likes Brightenburg's work and is comfortable with the deign based on results of other buildings in Ashland, specifically within the railroad district. Lewis feels that this building will be a nice addition to the neighborhood. He has a little concern with the dome, or reducing the height. Palm trees may also be a problem. Bailey suggested historical photos to be placed in the hallway of the building to enhance the history behind the project and the area. Lewis asked if there was a motion. Lessen the impact of the dome? Agreement with the overall plan? Steele moved to accept the project with provision that the barrel be modified to be less elevated. No second was provided. Skibby made a second motion to approve, including the 12 conditions in the Staff Report. Chambers second The motion passed with a 4-2 vote, as Steel and Bailey opposed. Lewis did not vote due to potential conflict of interest and motion didn't require it. OLD BUSINESS 1. Review Board , Project Assignments Anderson and Maser were assigned to the 665 B Street project o National Register website Steele told Tidings that the information will be sent in July to National Parks The text has been put on disc and the historic images are being scanned and modern pictures taken by Knox Maps are also needed. . Other Anderson discussed with the Commission the problem at review board with the building on Maple and North Main Street with the lack of window trim that was not caught by the review board. Anderson suggests that a form be used for applicant to fill out that would help prevent this problem from happening again. He passed out a draft form for the Commission to review and comment on. Discussion from the Commission included the inclusion of landscape details (not in HC purview), where in the approval process the form should be used, etc. Comments will be returned at the next meeting and a trial form will be used to determine its effectiveness. NEW BUSINESS 1. Strategic Planing Process Lewis brought up the issue of the moving of Carpenter Hall by OSF. There is talk about trying to keep the building where it is and get the new theater also. The idea of changing the theater building site to East Main did not go over well, as OSF states they can not get the property and they would lose a season for the indoor theater. Anderson asked if the scene shop talked about as option. Lewis stated that to get the same seating or flexible play rotation a bigger building would be needed. Steele promoted everyone to call in to Executive Director Paul Nicholson prior to the meeting at 5:00 on July 13. Chambers noted that the ambiance will change drastically and Maser added that the character of the entire town will change with it. Steele noted she received a letter from National Grant program for funding for a specific Historic project. Chambers mentioned the Civic Design standards as an option. Steele requested staff to review the information. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 from a motion by Chambers. ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Agenda Jul£ 7, 1999 I. IlL IV. CALL TO ORDER: 8:30 p.m. -ASHLAND COMMUNITY CENTER 59 Winburn Way APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 2, 1999 PUBLIC HEARINGS: PLANNING ACTION 99-068 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a transfer of ownership for a traveler's accommodation consisting of three units plus the owner's unit located at 174 North Main Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 BB; Tax Lot: 2200. APPLICANT: Mark and Goozel Dyer PLANNING ACTION 99-075 is a request for a Site Review for a new 4,000 square foot commercial building located at 665 "A" Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Employment; Zoning: E-l; Assessor's Map #: 39 1 E 09 AB; Tax Lot: 6507. APPLICANT: Patricia Murphy OLD BUSINESS: A. Review Board >> appointments/volunteers B. Project Assignments for each Planning Action C. Update on National Register Web Site D. Other NE W BUSINESS: A. City of Ashland Strategic Planning Process B. Other VI. AD JO URNMENT: