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