Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-01-24 Historic MINASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes January 24, 1997 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at the Council Chambers by Chairperson Jim Lewis at 7:43 p.m. Members present were Terry Skibby, Jim Lewis, Keith Chambers, Cliff Llewellyn, Larry Cardinale, Vava Bailey, Curt Anderson and Joyce Cowan. Also present was Associate Planner Kelly Madding and Secretary Nancy Slocum. Member Bill Harriff was absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Skibby moved and Cardinale seconded to approve the December 4, 1996 Minutes as submitted. The motion was unanimously passed. STAFF REPORTS Planning Action 96-143 Site Review 136 North Second Street Mary Nelke Madding read from the Staff Report this request for a Site Review Permit to construct a second residential unit at 136 North Second Street. The proposed unit is two-story, 1737 square feet, 23'6" tall (from grade to gable) and would be located in the rear of the lot. Zoning is Multi-Family Residential. This application was approved by Staff in November, 1996, and was appealed by an adjacent neighbor and the Historic Commission. The Commission later withdrew their appeal after reviewing the applicant's design modifications. Madding stated that the Commission's concerns were primarily that the structure's 25'-6" height and the general massing were felt to be incompatible with the existing house and neighborhood. These concerns were shared by the adjacent neighbor as well as Staff. Neither Staff nor the Commission believed it was fitting to penalize the property owner for having an existing small house when certain mitigating factors could be worked out. The latest redesign to this would lower the height of the building from 25'-6" to 23'-6" by lowering the lot's grade and utilizing the attic area by raising the interior ceiling into it. Another Staff concern was the addition of a second door on the rear (east) elevation. This would allow access for a future third unit which would require a Conditional Use Permit. The CUP has not been applied for and staff did not want to preempt a third unit by permitting the extra door. Despite concerns, Staff believed the proposal met Site Review Criteria. The design is consistent with neighborhood's architecture and relocation of the driveway along Second is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommended approval and Madding read the nine Conditions of Approval. She then referred the Commission to the letter received today, January 24, 1997, from an affected neighbor Garrison Turner. Speaking in favor, Brad Roupp offered to answer any questions the commission might have. He then described the variance between grades and how the two foot reduction in height was achieved. He stated that the finished product will be lower that the plans show. He believed that the lower foundation improves the height. Llewellyn asked if there are any solar problems associated with this project. Roupp replied that staff checked solar and it was in compliance. There was a mixup with the plans and Commission previously studied the wrong elevations. Skibby noticed that the second floor windows were reduced and that a lower roof pitch would detract from the Victorian design. Chambers was interested in seeing the solar calculations. Lewis explained how staff reviews building permits and checks solar access on each set of plans. Skibby noted that some sort of front yard shrub screening might help with the privacy and massing concerns. Applicant Mary Nelke mentioned that shrubs were already in place. Pam Burkholder, Garrison Turner's wife and affected neighbor, wanted clarification as to how the height was calculated. She asked if the applicant was just manipulating the height using grade. Lewis explained that height is measured from the average of grade and that the grade at the site has a two foot difference from front to back. Chambers wondered about any drainage problems the lower grade may cause and also how the 18" drop in grade would be enforced. Anderson referred to the Turner letter and its concerns about solar access. Roupp stated he is in disagreement with several points in the Turner letter. Lewis explained that the minutes of meetings are not transcribed and that certain assumptions from neighbors were understandable. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes January 24, 1997 Page 2 Mary Nelke stated that a neighbor's plans, currently in the city for plan review for a building permit, showed a height of 17' with a two foot grade. She explained that the height of her application was only 2'-6" to 3' taller. Cardinale was concerned with the compatibility with the neighborhood. He remembered that Mr. Turner has a two story unit and asked if there are any other two story units in the rear of lots in the area. Madding stated no, not on Second Street. Chambers noted a past project on Iowa, between Harrison and Morton he felt was incompatible with neighborhood and in that example there was a 7' difference in height between the front and the rear houses. Burkholder spoke in opposition to the proposal. In addition to her husband's letter, she testified that the "streetscape" rendering, although artistic, was not very realistic. She believed the proposed unit looked very small (like a bungalow) and the relationship to the from unit was closer than the rendering. She questioned the intent of the draftsperson. She was also concerned with the precedent of approving this application and the change it would bring to the character of the neighborhood. Burkholder wondered if the grading solution to reduce the height would look unconventional. The other plan currently going through the building permit process referred to by the applicant, is only 450 square feet of storage and 17' high. She believed that was substantially different than this proposal. She stated she did not want the higher density. She felt that the Site Design and Use Guidelines did not reflect this type of project because staff never felt it would be proposed. During Commission discussion, Skibby recalled an example of a larger house in the rear on C Street between 4th and 5th Streets. Chambers commented on the difference between the Staff Report and Turner's letter. Madding had not talked with Bill Molnar about the letter and referred commission to the Staff Report which stated that, "Both parties agree the proposed structure is compatible with existing buildings in the area, but not with the existing house. Because of the house's small size, it is unlikely that any two-story house would be compatible". Llewellyn wanted to see a one and one half story unit. Chambers understood the staff to be in opposition of the project. He was not comfortable with the proposal, but sympathized with applicant. He agreed with the first paragraph in the Turner letter which stated that "The first step in any project is to analyze the site and design the project INTO the site..." He felt this project represented just the opposite philosophy. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes January 24, 1997 Page 3 Lewis believed the property owner had the right to put a 1700 square foot structure on the lot. He wondered if the applicant could redesign the house another way to obtain the same square footage. Chambers had difficulty with putting a large house in back of an existing structure. He stated that the Planning Commission would see the Turner letter so why would the Historic Commission recommend approval. Llewellyn questioned whether the decision would be different if the front unit was moved to the rear. Lewis explained that in his experience moving houses, it would not be a feasible idea, but it could be done. Bailey stated she would like the smaller house in the rear, but as submitted now, she believed it was incompatible. Brad Roupp stated that Planner Mark Knox told applicant she could neither move the house nor add a second story to the existing house. Lewis disagreed with this and felt either idea would be an option. Skibby wondered if a second story was added to the front unit would the rear unit look more compatible. He was against moving the front house as it would set a precedent. Skibby would be in favor of lowering the roof line in the proposed unit. He stated there were some examples of two story structures in the rear of lots. He suggested adding some screening. Lewis stated that the application must be reviewed as submitted. Chambers agreed and stressed the need to apply the existing criteria. Massing and scale are part of the criteria. He urged a recommendation one way or the other. Llewellyn felt moving the house would not compromise the neighborhood any more than having the large residence in the rear. Lewis mentioned the Travellers Accommodation criteria and specifically the 20 year rule. He was comparing this application with one at 366 B Street which was ultimately denied. Madding was not clear as to which house would be used for a Traveller's Accommodation, but suggested the commission focus on this application which did not include a TA. She then promised to get back to Lewis with an interpretation of the 20 year rule. Chambers stated that he might reconsider the application with the smaller house in the rear. He reminded the commission that the same issues could again be raised. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes January 24, 1997 Page 4 Skibby wondered about changing the configuration of the house to face it toward the alley. Mary Nelke stated her two homes would be the only residences on the street as the neighboring business owners leave the area at 5:00 pm. She was excited about bring life to the neighborhood. Pam Burkholder mentioned other residences on the street. She was proud of her previous mixed use approval submitted before mixed use was a requirement. Skibby said that the commission encourages residences in the Historic District and admitted that there would be a gain with this application. Chambers reminded commission that staff will address the Turner letter and asked about Planning Commission procedure. Madding explained that the process was similar to the Historic Commission's. The Turner letter will be seen by the Planning Commission along with the Historic Commission's recommendation. Chambers then moved to recommend denial of Planning Action 96-143 on the basis that it was in direct violation of the Site Design and Use Guidelines. Specifically, that the proposal was not designed for the site, the massing and scale of the project was too large for the neighborhood and the 23'-6" elevation was not compatible with the historic nature of the Railroad District. Cardinale seconded the motion. Lewis and Skibby both expressed their uneasiness in regards to the motion. Skibby was against the motion for denial. He felt the commission did not give the applicant options. Chambers disagreed. In addition, he believed the Turner letter raised several significant points. The vote was taken with Lewis, Chambers, Llewellyn, Cardinale, Bailey, Anderson and Cowan voting yes and Skibby voting no. Motion to recommend denial carried. Planning Action 97-003 Conditional Use Permit - Transfer of Ownership 541 North Main Street and 55 Nursery Street Paul and Teresa Mensch Madding reported that the applicant is requesting a transfer of ownership for the existing traveller's accommodation. The conditions of approval have not changed since the original approval in 1984. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes January 24, 1997 Page 5 Chambers affirm the fact that there were no external or operational changes proposed for this application. Llewellyn thereby moved and Bailey seconded to recommend approval of this application to the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. BUILDING PERMITS Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of December and January will be listed in the March Minutes. OLD BUSINESS REVIEW BOARD Following is the schedule (until the next meeting) for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department: February 6 February 13 February 20 February 27 Skibby, Cowan and Bailey Skibby, Cowan and Bailey Lewis, Bailey and Skibby Skibby, Anderson and Lewis NEW BUSINESS Plaza Nomination for National Register Madding showed the Commission the letter and documentation from Brian Almquist to the State Historic Preservation Office. The packet will serve to nominate the Ashland Plaza and the buildings which line its boundary for the Determination of Eligibility (DOE) for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Sueeestions for Staff The commission discussed several ideas that would assist them in future Review Board and Full Commission meetings. 1. That the full commission give the Review Board more "direction". . That plans for review be flagged as to type of action (ie building permit vs. Staff Permits vs Site Reviews or Conditional Use Permits). Have some sort of key posted on the "Ramp Room" wall for convenience. 3. Have a Ashland Zoning Map posted on the wall of the "Ramp Room." 4. Address frustration of Historic Commission regarding the lack of specific guidelines that is then used by the Planning Commission. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes January 24, 1997 Page 6 1, Have Staff coordinate a study session on Staff procedures for planning actions and the use of the Site Design and Use Guidelines. ADJOURNMENT With a motion by Anderson and second by Cardinale, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes January 24, 1997 Page 7 ASI-H~AND HISTORIC COMMISSION Agenda January 24, 1997 I® CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m. - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1175 East Main Street II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 4, 1996 Ill. STAFF REPORTS: PLANNING ACTION 9%003 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a transfer of ownership for a six-unit (includes owner's unit) traveller's accommodation located at 451 North Main Street and 55 Nursery Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 05DA; Tax Lot(s): 7200. APPLICANT: Paul and Teresa Mensch PLANNING ACTION 96-143 is a request for a Site Review to construct a second residence at 136 North Second Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map#: 39 1E09BA; Tax Lot(s): 9100. APPLICANT: Mary Nelke IV. OLD BUSINESS: A. Review Board ~, appointments/volunteers B. Project Assignments for each Planning Action C. Heritage Street Name List Update - January 21 City Council meeting D. Other V. NEW BUSINESS A. Video from the Historic Preservation League of Oregon Building On the Past: Oregon's Preservation Spirit B. Other VI. AD.IOIYRNMENT ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Agenda January 8, 1997 I, CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m. - ASHLAND COMMUNITY CENTER 59 Winburn Way II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 4, 1996 III. STAFF REPORTS: PLANNING ACTION 97-003 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a transfer of ownership for a six-unit (includes owner's unit) traveller's accommodation located at 451 North Main Street and 55 Nursery Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 05DA; Tax Lot(s): 7200. APPLICANT: Paul and Teresa Mensch PLANNING ACTION 96-143 is a request for a Site Review to construct a second residence at 136 North Second Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map//: 39 1E09BA; Tax Lot(s): 9100. APPLICANT: Mary Nelke IV. OLD BUSINESS: A. Review Board ,, appointments/volunteers B. Project Assignments for each Planning Action C. Heritage Street Name List Update - January 21 City Council meeting D. Other V. NEW BUSINESS A. Video from the Historic Preservation League of Oregon BuiMing On the Past: Oregon's Preservation Spirit B. Other VI. ADJOURNMENT