Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-03-06 Historic MINASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes March 6, 1996 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Jim Lewis at 7:40 p.m. Members present were Terry Skibby, Jim Lewis, Vava Bailey, Bill Emerson, Keith Chambers, Cliff Llewellyn and Bill Harriff. Also present were City Council Liaison Brent Thompson, Associate Planner Mark Knox and Secretary Sonja Akerman. Members Casey Mitchell and Larry Cardinale were absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Emerson stated that on page 3, the minutes should read "larger than the curb cut" in the 6th paragraph. Also, in the second paragraph on page 5 regarding the entryway, it should read "the entryway angle seems to contemporary." Skibby moved and Emerson seconded to approve the Minutes of the February 7, 1996 meeting as corrected. The motion was unanimously passed. STAFF REPORTS Planning Action 96-034 Conditional Use Permit 19 Hillcrest Street David Allman Knox explained this application is to make an existing accessory residential unit legal. There will be no external changes. All regulations are met, and Staff has administratively approved it. Chambers moved and Bailey seconded to recommend making this unit legal. The motion passed unanimously. Planning Action 96-036 Site Review and Parking Variance 265 Fourth Street Crissy Barnett and Jean Kowacki Knox reported this application is for the expansion of the existing cafe in the 4th Street Gallery. The proposal involves a 456 square foot extension of the existing footprint onto the rear of the building. The exterior finish will match the existing building. A three space parking variance is also being requested. Staff believes this proposal meets the criteria for a Variance and is recommending approval with four conditions, including a bike parking area. Crissy Barnett clarified the addition will be under the existing arbor. When asked by Chambers if the enlargement will allow more seating, Barnett answered the addition is only to accommodate a commercial kitchen. The seating capacity will remain the same. Skibby said he feels comfortable with the application and noted the applicants had been to the Review Board. Lewis related it is important for the Railroad District to have uses such as this. Emerson moved to recommend approval of this application and Llewellyn seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved. Planning Action 96-039 Exterior Modifications of Previously Approved Site Review 485 MA" Street Steve Hoxmeier Knox reported this application is for the modification of the exterior design. He explained that in April of 1994, the owner was granted approval to construct a building that was to be used as office, warehouse, shop or storage space. In July of 1994, a building permit was issued for construction of the building. It was brought to Staff's attention a couple months ago that significant changes have occurred. Consequently, a red tag was issued. Staff felt the modifications were important enough that the changes could not be approved administratively, but would need Planning Commission approval of the Site Review. Knox then listed the changes: 1) roof shape has been modified to include a continuous north to south oriented gable; 2) number, location and size of windows on the east elevation have been changed (single hung window size has been changed from 3' x 6' to 4' x 6', three parings of two have been replaced by a row of four, and one large fixed window has replaced a set of single hung windows); 3) the trellis covered porch area along the entire Fourth Street frontage of the building has been eliminated and replaced with a smaller covered porch entry; 4) a pair of single hung windows (3' x 6') on the north elevation have been replaced by a 6' x 6' fixed window and a 4' x 6' single hung window; and 5) a set of French doors has been added to the south elevation, while the window size has been changed from a 3' x 6' to a 4' x 6'. Staff is especially concerned about the fixed window on the east side and the loss of the porch on Fourth Street. Skibby questioned the porch. Knox said when the application was originally approved, Staff was under the impression this would be more of a temporary building and would have future additions. Emerson noted the deck would be temporary because if the building is added onto, it should be toward "A" Street, perhaps with an angled entry. Harriff asked Steve Hoxmeier what happened. Hoxmeier said when he was working on the roof, he realized he needed more headroom so he just made straight across gabled head room and thought it looked better. He decided this while buying the trusses. He also noted the pitch of the roof is the same as the pitch of the ceiling. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes March 6, 1996 Page 2 Skibby asked if the deck was a part of the plan. Hoxmeier said it would be in the future. Harriff asked about the front porch. Hoxmeier answered he hasn't gotten that far yet. It may be a part of the plan, but for now, it is just what is shown on the drawing. Emerson stated he thinks it is overall a better design than what was originally approved and added he likes the roof line better. He asked Knox if the future addition was originally approved. Knox said it was not. Harriff said he wanted to make it clear the Commission is not approving a "future addition". Chambers asked Hoxmeier why the Historic Commission should consider the plan when they have spent countless hours on the previous approval, and it was ignored. Hoxmeier said he wished he had done it differently. The changes were made while the building was under construction. Also, everyone he talked with thought the changes were for the better. Chambers said the issue is the legal planning process. He stressed the fact that Hoxmeier had been to the Review Board and Historic Commission meetings many times, they had gone through the design many times, and the Commission is charged with the responsibility of design issues. He declared he finds it hard to work with people who ignore what was approved. Bailey asked if the horizontal lap siding will be as in the original approval. Hoxmeier said it would be and is currently on the west elevation. Lewis said because the north elevation faces away from "A" Street, the fixed window will not be such a problem. However, the east elevation with the large fixed window seems out of place. Harriff asked if the Commission should deny this because Hoxmeier did not follow what was approved. Hoxmeier responded he came in with modified plans and said they weren't exactly the windows he would be using, but they were approximately what he would use. The ones in the building were the ones he was able to acquire. It wasn't something he planned on doing all along. He also added he didn't think the changes were so significant. Skibby noted the overall design of the building was not that bad, however the columns on the corner look light. Chambers asked if the Commission wanted to micro-design the building. He said in his opinion, the windows should be removed and replaced with the more compatible ones which were originally approved. He also stressed the importance of this corner. When questioned by Harriff, Chambers said the Commission spent hours with the applicant on the design and this has resulted in problems. He said the Commission should deny the modifications. Lewis stated this application should be taken in steps. He feels the roof looks better, but he has a problem with the fixed windows. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes March 6, 1996 Page 3 Bailey said she agreed with Chambers and felt the windows should be restored to the original design. Harriff also agreed with Chambers on this point, but felt OK with the roof change. Chambers said he just couldn't accept Hoxmeier's statement "these are the kind of windows I could find". Harriff asked if Hoxmeier were using recycled material. He responded he was not. Chambers asked if the windows were recycled. Hoxmeier said no, the windows on one side were wood and were metal on the other side. Hoxmeier also said he would encourage the Commission to look out the windows from the inside of the building. He then asked if it wasn't after the fact, would there be such animosity for the windows? The Commission all agreed the windows would never have been approved. Emerson noted it seems as though Hoxmeier is still proposing to make more changes. Harriff said the Commission has continually been concerned about designs that have been approved, then contractors or owners who come along and think it is alright to change the design. He wondered what could be done about it. Knox said the Historic Commission recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission, which has not been exposed to this particular application and therefore hasn't been rubbed the wrong way with the design changes because the Historic Commission buffers it from that. Knox went on to say the Planning Commission looks at a variety of issues, whereas the Historic Commission looks specifically at design. Emerson said he would object to the existing windows, but feels the roof is OK. The east window needs to be removed and there needs to be a double grouping of double hung windows in its place. Chambers then moved to recommend denial of the application as redesigned for the reason it was not built according to the approved plans. The applicant should be required to build as originally approved except for the fact he could leave the roof as it is. He also should remove all non-complying windows and replace them by matching the original plans. Because there are serious discrepancies with the submitted drawings, Harriff clarified the motion should include the applicant be required to come back to the Review Board with accurate scale drawings, including how the porch and deck will be built. In addition, he wanted it clear that "possible future additions" have nothing to do with this application. Bailey seconded the motion. The motion carried with all voting aye except Harriff and Emerson. Planning Action 96-016 Conditional Use Permit 101 Gresham Street Kathy Buffington Knox stated the applicant proposes to convert this house to a one-unit traveller's accommodation. The owner also is the property owner of the Antique Rose right next door. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes March 6, 1996 Page 4 The house is 875 square feet and has no architectural merit what so ever. Vehicular parking can be met in the front or in the rear. The application meets the requirements, however Staff is recommending denial because there would be no benefit to the City. It will be the loss of a truly affordable single family residence. The intent of the traveller's accommodation ordinance is to allow older historic homes to recover losses through restoration. Staff believes this one unit will decrease the market demand for others to be restored. Knox also noted the applicant has already purchased the property based on the fact she thought it would be approved. Bailey said she thought at first the house would be a good one to fix up and make it look better, but she can understand what Knox was saying. Emerson said he was disappointed the owner was not planning to change the exterior. He feels this is the only opportunity to make the house look better. Harriff asked what would happen if the owner sold the property to someone who would either demolish the house and build another larger one, or would fix it up and add on to it. It wouldn't be affordable any more. Chambers said you can't control the future of Ashland, but asked what do you want to do about creeping B & Bs in the residential area? Lewis suggested she live in this house and rent out all of the Antique Rose as B & B units. In his opinion, denial would not mean she would lose money. Skibby moved to recommend denial of this planning action. Chambers seconded the motion and it passed with all voting aye except Harriff. Planning Action 96-038 Site Review 640 'A~ Street James and Cheryl Lewis Lewis stepped down and Skibby took over the meeting. Knox reported Lewis proposes to build a two-car garage with a second story studio apartment on the rear of his house. The first story will be split face block and the second story will be sawn shingles. The rafters will match the existing house. Staff feels this is an acceptable use and has administratively approved it. Skibby noted the existing house was originally located on Pioneer Street. Lewis moved it to 640 "A" Street, brought it up to code and added onto it. Lewis stated he did not want to match the existing house with this addition, which is also in keeping with Department of Interior Standards for National Register houses. Also, the multiple v-groove wooden siding on the existing house would be too busy on the garage/studio apartment. Another reason he wants to use the split face block is for Ashland Historic Commission Minutes March 6, 1996 Page 5 maintenance purposes. There will be no paint on the shingles and he would not have to sheetrock the garage. He explained he had originally wanted a detached carriage house, but the setbacks and fire code would not allow this. By attaching it to his existing house, he will have easier access to the garage. The addition will face the alley and have its own character. When questioned about height, Lewis stated the addition, although it is two stories, will only be four and one-half feet higher than the existing house, which is 22 feet. Chambers asked if he would consider horizontal siding rather than block. Lewis said he would prefer not to use wood, and added there are several cinder block buildings on "A" Street already. Since he is located in a commercial zone, he was looking for more of a rustic look. Emerson said he likes the idea of keeping with a different look. It gives the addition its own individuality. He suggested using synthetic stucco, as he personally feels split face block should mainly be used on foundations. He also questioned the spaces between the windows on the first floor. Lewis said he could either get a five inch separation between them or drop down to a single double hung. Harriff asked if this were approved, would it give a preference to Lewis if other people who want to build split face block structures are denied. He does not want to show special treatment because Lewis is a Commission member. Chambers said he has a problem with split face block and it would be hard to tell the next person no. He also said that while the addition would not show from the "A" Street side, it would be quite visible from Fifth Street. Lewis responded he is set on masonry and argued it will look better than wood. He stated there is a lot of mixed texture use in the area. Skibby said he doesn't object to the split face block and thinks it is a nice design, with a lot of attention paid to detail. A lot of credibility also needs to be noted to all the work Lewis has done on the depot and two houses he has moved and restored. Bailey said if the Commission approves the cinder block, it may have to approve more in that area. Skibby asked about the garage doors. Lewis said they will swing open, not slide up. He will bring in detail for the doors when he submits the plans for the permit. Chambers moved and Llewellyn seconded to approve this application. The motion carried with all voting aye except Emerson (who abstained because the windows were not drawn correctly) and Harriff (who abstained because he did not want to set a precedence with the use of split face block). Lewis will submit revised plans to the Review Board will the windows drawn correctly. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes March 6, 1996 Page 6 Discussion ensued regarding the numerous changes that result after plans have been approved. Knox suggested the Historic Commission write a letter to the Building Department asking the inspectors please pay more attention to the approved design, especially in the Historic District. BUILDING PERMITS Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of February follow: 129 Bush Street 59 Sixth Street 320 East Main Street 482 Iowa Street 33 Third Street 634 Iowa Street 92 1/2 North Main Street N. Main & Laurel Streets 64 North Pioneer Street 163 East Main Street 92 North Main Street Pat Colwell Harry/Zelpha Hutton John Fields Roanne Lyall Roger Ledbetter Landes/Merrick/Fabricant/Gant Ashland Creek Bar & Grill Briscoe Elementary School Footlights Theater Gallery Iris Blossom Europa-Let/Tropical Inn-Let Remodel Studio Addition Cmmrcl/Rsdntl Bldg Addendum to Plans Interior Remodel Remodel Sign Temp Sign Sign Sign Sign 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: March 7 March 14 March 21 March 28 Bailey, Lewis and Skibby Cardinale, Bailey and Skibby Chambers, Llewellyn and Skibby Cardinale, Skibby and Lewis OLD BUSINESS National Historic Preservation Week ~ May 12th - 18th Lewis and Skibby reported the National Trust for Historic Preservation theme this year is PRESERVE COMMUNITY. Walking tours will be focusing on pioneer sites and the 150th anniversary of the Applegate Trail. Awards will be presented in the new Railroad Park in the rose garden. Lewis will be in charge of obtaining the judges. Bailey volunteered to do research on the Hargadine Cemetery for a tour. Ashland Heritage Committee Emerson related he had contacted the Oregon Historical Society regarding affiliate memberships. He found out the Heritage Committee can be an affiliate member while the Ashland Historic Commission Minutes March 6, 1996 Page 7 Historic Commission cannot. He proposed the Historic Commission members become members of the Heritage Committee, since in order to qualify for grant money, the Heritage Committee needs 50 current members. The Heritage Committee will then be eligible for grant money through Jackson County. This year, there was $246,929 available. Through the Heritage Committee, the Historic Commission may be able to benefit also. (It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to extend the meeting past 10:30 p.m.) Harriff moved to allocate $45.00, based on $5.00 per member, from the Historic Commission budget for yearly dues to the Heritage Committee. Bailey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Southern Oregon Historical Society It was announced the grand opening of the exhibit Ashland: Merchants to The Valley at the Mark Antony will be March 14th. There will be a special reception from 6:00-8:00 p.m. 482 Iowa Street Emerson asked for approval from the Commission to change the spindles on the railing from 1 3/4" to 1 1/2" diameter. The Commission approved the change. NEW BUSINESS SHPO Grant Application Knox related the City had applied for a grant from the State Historic Preservation Office to put the Railroad District on the National Register. We are asking for $6,000 and will provide $13,560 in kind services. If the City gets the grant and all goes well, it is anticipated next year we will apply for grant in order to get the Commercial District on the National Register, and the following years, we will try for the Siskiyou-Hargadine and Skidmore- Academy Districts. The Commission commended Knox on all the work he had done on the grant application. Ashland Cemetery Skibby noted the Chitwood marker had been gone for quite some time and was pleasantly surprised to find the marker is now back and had been repaired. ADJOURNMENT It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes March 6, 1996 Page 8 ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Agenda March 6, 1996 L CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m. - ASHLAND COMMUNITY CENTER 59 Winburn Way APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 7, 1996 III. STAFF REPOR TS: PLANNING ACTION 96-034 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory resMential unit (located within the existing accessory building) at 19 Hillcrest. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residentiak Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map dP: 9CA; Tax Lot: 11301. APPLICANT: David Allman PLANNING ACTION 96-036 is a request for a Site Review for a restaurant addition to the existing business at 265 Fourth Street. A Variance is being requested for a reduction of two parla'ng spaces. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Employment; Zoning: E-I; 9BA; Tax Lot: 3200. APPLICANT: Chrissy Barnett/Jean Kowacki PLANNING ACTION 96-039 is a request for approval of exterior changes to a previously approved building. Request also involves a change in occupancy to allow for a restaurant use/eating establishment located at 485 A Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Employment; Zoning: E-I; Assessor's Map #: 9BA; Tax Lot: 14600. APPLICANT: Steve Hoxmeier PLANNING ACTION 96-016 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a one-unit traveller's accommodation located at 101 Gresham Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi- Family Residential; Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map dp: 9CA; Tax Lot: 8200. APPLICANT: Kathy Buffington PLANNING ACTION 96-038 is a request for a Site Review to construct a two car garage and a second story studio apartment. The addition will be to the rear of the existing structure at 640 "A" Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Employment; Zoning: E-I; Assessor's Map dp: 9AB; Tax Lots: 4700 and 4800. APPLICANT: James and Cheryl Lewis IV. OLD BUSINESS: A. Review Board ~ appointments/volunteers B. National Histodc Preservation Week ~ May 12th - 18th C. Oregon's Special Assessment Program - Application Packet (please bdng last month's packet with this information) D. Other V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ADJOURNMENT