Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-03-02 Historic MINASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes March 2, 1994 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Jim Lewis at 7:40 p.m. Members present were Jim Lewis, Terry Skibby, H.L. Wood, Le Hook, Casey Mitchell, Chloe Winston, Steve Ennis and Keith Chambers. Also present were Senior Planner Bill Molnar, Associate Planner Mark Knox, City Council Liaison Pat Acklin and Secretary Sonja Akerman. Dana Johnson was absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Winston moved and Mitchell seconded to approve the Minutes of the February 2, 1994 meeting as submitted. Ennis remarked that on Page 2, the address should be on Lithia Way rather than Lit Way. The motion, with the correction, passed unanimously. STAFF REPORTS PA 94-031 Conditional Use Permit 758 "B" Street Philip Lang/Ruth Miller Knox reported this application is for the conversion of an existing garage to an accessory guest unit. A Conditional Use Permit is required because the setbacks are non-conforming. Exterior changes to the building include the addition of cedar shingles to match the existing home and the new garage, the addition of two skylights on the roof, the addition of a door on the east side, and the enclosure of the existing garage door. Knox noted that Staff is supportive of the application, especially since an older structure will be retained. He added that outbuildings on the alley have a positive impact because they are representative of the development pattern throughout the Historic District. Skibby asked if the frame of the building will be retained. Knox said it is in good shape and will basically be kept in tact. Hook asked about the condition of the alley. It is not paved, and Knox said for the approval obtained three years ago, the owners were required to sign in favor of improvements. Skibby inquired about the poor condition of the sidewalk in front of the house. Ruth Miller, owner/applicant, stated it will be upgraded upon completion of the work on the new garage and guest unit. When questioned by Chambers about kitchen facilities, Miller said there will only be a bathroom and a utility sink. No kitchen appliances will be installed, as it will be used as a bedroom for their guests. Wood moved and Ennis seconded to recommend approval of this application to the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. PA 94-034 Conditional Use Permit 868 'A' Street Betty Camner Knox explained the owner is requesting to convert her existing cottage into a one-unit motel. Existing parking is adequate and the alley is already paved. A building permit will be required before the cottage can be rented because building codes differ between rental units and motel units. Ennis asked about the concrete wall by the unit. Betty Camner said half is on her property and half is on the neighbor's property. Suggestions for making it less conspicuous included covering it with wood, painting it, and growing vegetation such as ivy or honeysuckle. With a motion by Hook and second by Chambers, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to recommend approval of this action. PA 94-037 Transfer of Ownership/Solar Waiver 117 North Main Street Gail Barham Molnar said the original application for a three-unit traveler's accommodation was approved last September. The new owner is aware of all the conditions of approval. The solar waiver is requested because the roof line needs to be reconstructed in order to accommodate the bathrooms upstairs. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions of the previously approved application remaining the same. Ennis recalled the densities which were discussed last September. While he realizes these are two separate applications with two separate owners and two separate assumptions, it still bothers him. Molnar said the Planning Commissions struggled with this proposal because since the property was for sale at the time, it was felt the application was only to make the property more marketable. Chambers stated he has the same frustration because they are continually being asked to "grandfather" in situations which were intentionally created. Skibby related he was able to tour the house and felt positive about the project. Bill Emerson, designer for the project, clarified the fact that the previous owner thought bathrooms could be added without any exterior changes, but he found it could not be done. The only change in the front will be the addition of a handrail. He also said that after a survey was completed, it was found the house did not meet the required six foot setback, so the owner obtained a boundary line adjustment. Lewis remarked the Historic Commission agrees the previous application was premature, however, the new owner has everything together. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes March 2, 1994 Page 2 Skibby noted the original owner, Ann Hill Russell, was one of the finest marble sculptors in the country and that many gravestones in the City's cemeteries were carved by her. Ennis stated he voted against the application in September because he felt the density of the lot was misrepresented and it was premature. Although he likes what is being proposed now, he finds it hard to support. Chambers asked if the target use has changed since the square footage of the lot has been adjusted. Molnar stated it is still a duplex, not a triplex. The Commission needs to weigh whether the adverse effects would be greater with a duplex or a bed and breakfast. Skibby questioned the square footage of the addition. Emerson answered the footprint will remain the same. The only addition will be ceiling height and roof line change. Owner Gail Barham asserted the house has been remodelled three times in the rear and she wants it cleaned up and more unified, while maintaining the integrity of the structure. The Commission then discussed the elevations which will be changed and how visible these changes will be from the street. Chambers moved to recommend approval of this application, noting it is still the same piece of property with the same number of units, with the only changes in the rear, which will nearly be non-visible. Mitchell seconded the motion and it passed will all voting aye except Ennis, Winston and Hook. PA 94-041 Site Review 624 "A" Street James Lewis Lewis excused himself from this action and turned the meeting over to Skibby. Knox explained the applicant is requesting to convert the Railroad Depot into general retail and office space. As an interim use for the retail space, the applicant intends to operate a light wood manufacturing shop until the space is leased for retail use. Parking will be adequate and the owner proposes to reduce paving by installing grass pavers. Sidewalks have recently been installed. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the owner will have to turn in a landscape/irrigation plan and have it approved by the Tree Commission or designee. Ennis asked if paving of the alley will be a requirement. Knox answered it would. Hook said he had a problem with this. Acklin stated there are no rules for not paving the alleys. After discussing this, Skibby said that although current rules for paving exist, the Commission can request a delay in alley paving. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes March 2, 1994 Page 3 Lewis conveyed he had previous approval for a Site Review but because of the lapse of time, it expired. All exterior changes have been approved by the State Historic Preservation Office. Hook asked about the proposed color of paint. Lewis answered it is on the building and can be seen where it was sanded down. He will be using gray colors from the 1880s, and will be getting approval from SHPO. Skibby questioned the use. Lewis said there are several people who have expressed an interest in the space and he needs room for an office. When Ennis asked about handicapped access, Lewis said each use will be accessible according to ADA. Skibby said this is a fitting use for the property. Ellen Downes, 266 Fifth Street, said she has looked at the plans. Her concerns are of the alley paving. It is a very residential alley, and would suggest there not be a blind assumption that all alleys be paved. She would rather have dust problems than have it paved. Acklin reiterated that right now the rules require paving. DEQ has stated the dust needs to be reduced because it is not healthy. Also, unpaved alleys cost more to maintain. Chambers said the Alley Committee has put in countless hours to identify the alleys in Ashland and suggest alternatives to paving. The prevailing attitude in Ashland is that not all alleys should be paved. A large percentage of people recognize that alleys are a resource. Even though it is in the books to require paving, the City has the power to delay paving and recommend alternative methods. Speaking from experience, he said dust on most residential alleys is minimal, and he asked that this alley paving be delayed. Molnar said he can understand the frustration of the Historic Commission and the Alley Committee, as paving/alternatives to paving was discussed with the Planning Commission at a study session and went no further. This also needs to go to Pubic Works to study alternate methods of paving. Staff has no problem with the applicant signing in favor of alley improvements with a deferment. Chambers suggested a driveway cut rather than using the alley for traffic. Winston moved to recommend approval of this application. Ennis added that condition 7 be revised to recommend the applicant sign in favor of alley improvements. Hook seconded the motion with the amendment. The motion passed unanimously, with Lewis abstaining. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes March 2, 1994 Page 4 PA 94-042 Extension of Conditional Use Permit and Site Review Vacant Corner of Helman and Lithia Way Jonathan Warren Knox noted this application is for an extension of what has been previously approved; there are no changes from the original application. Staff has received a number of complaints about the unimproved status of the lot, including the fence, which is unpleasant and an encroachment to the sidewalk. Knox stated these conditions are serious and need to be rectified immediately. Staff has recommended approval of this application with all previously approved conditions. Additional conditions are that the applicant install or bond for a temporary sidewalk to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Community Development Director; install or bond for improvements to the water main on Helman Street to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Community Development Director; remove the existing fencing along Lithia Way and replace it with landscaping according to originally approved plans, or install fill behind the sidewalk to provide for a gradual slope dissenting away from Lithia Way to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director; and that the previous conditions be completed or bonded by May 1, 1994. If these conditions have not been met by June 1, the City of Ashland will call the bonds and complete the improvements. Knox said he has talked with the applicant who has agreed to conform to all the conditions. Ennis stated that although this is an attractive building and permitted use, it is too large for this site. He felt that way during the original application and still feels that way. Chambers said he also originally voted against it. In view of the extension, he said the City has been forced to look at the ugly site for over a year, and does not feet that consists of grounds for an extension. The past performance needs to be considered. Hook agreed and said the work was started almost immediately, and going by past performance, the application should not be extended. Molnar stated there have been no major ordinance changes. Usually a first extension is relatively easy, but the Commission can request the Hearings Board call it up for a public hearing. Wood, Winston and Mitchell were not members of the Historic Commission when this application was originally approved. They all agreed the structure was too large in scale for the site. Wood moved to recommend denial of the application because of traffic safety, bulk and scale. Hook seconded the motion. After discussing the concerns, Chambers said he would write a memo to the Planning Commission addressing the reasons for denial and requesting the Hearings Board call it up for a public hearing. (The memo is attached and made a part of these minutes.) The motion passed unanimously. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes March 2, 1994 Page 5 PA 94-045 Site Review 407 Scenic Drive Richard and Dorothy Davis Molnar explained the Conditional Use Permit application for a traveler's accommodation was recently approved and the Site Review was deferred in order to allow more time to submit final landscape and building plans. The Historic Commission felt the original drawings presented for the owner's quarters were too repetitive with the house, and subsequent plans have been submitted. Ennis remarked the elevations have grown from the original approval, but stated the architecture and concept are very nice. The Commission agreed the plans have improved. Hook moved to recommend approval of this application as submitted. Skibby seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. PA 94-046 Site Review 8 "B" Street Phyllis Sanderson/Caroline Mohagen Knox explained the applicants are requesting to add a second story addition to the existing house which comprises a residence and small antique business. The addition is requested to expand the residential area, while the commercial area will remain the same. Skibby noted the Review Board questioned the scale of the proposed addition. Ennis added that according to the Site Design and Review Standards, the height relating to nearby structures is too massive. He suggested the applicants lower the plate height to reduce the height and still have two stories. His biggest concern is the west elevation, which will face the parking lot on Water Street. Phyllis Sanderson stated the wall will be broken up with landscaping. Lewis stated the west wall seems like it is stacking up without architectural relief, and suggested changing the gable and perhaps adding a belly band to break up the relief. Ennis advised the applicant she should work with the Review Board in revising the elevations. Sanderson said she would agree to breaking up the lines, but doesn't want to lose the height. The existing ceiling downstairs is nine feet, while the ceiling upstairs will be eight feet. Ennis said the elevation needs to be softened and depth added, and that can be accomplished without losing the height. Sanderson noted the house sits on two lots and covers less square footage than allowed. Ennis moved to recommend approval of this application with the condition the owners work with the Review Board in addressing concerns of massing. Winston seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes March 2, 1994 Page 6 PA 94-018 Site Review 438 North Main Street Marilyn M. Evans Knox gave background information on this application, stating that in February of 1990, the owners received approval to operate a five-unit motel with catering. In April of 1993, approval for a Minor Land Partition was granted, and last December, the applicant applied for a business license for a 34 seat restaurant. The applicant was then notified of Building and Planning requirements, and is currently operating the restaurant and hotel in violation of these requirements. There will be no exterior modifications other than a ramp to accommodate handicapped customers. The parking, as proposed, does not meet the vision clearance requirements, nor does it meet the Site Design and Use Standards, or the Detail Site Review Standards. Other concerns include the lack of screening for the existing commercial size trash container, inadequate bicycle parking, and the Minor Land Partition which was approved less than a year ago has not been completed (if the survey is completed prior to April 13, 1994, four parking spaces would be on a separate parcel). Staff is unsupportive of a favorable recommendation to the Planning Commission. Cheryl Colwell, owner of the property, handed out a revision of the parking design. Skibby questioned the parking areas in front of the house. Colwell explained the existing parking, and Molnar added the two spaces in front and five in the rear were originally approved; however, since that time, the Site Design and Use Standards have been adopted by the Council and parking in front of structures is no longer approved. The City is now bound by the existing standards. Knox interjected the requirements for a 34 seat restaurant exceed the standards for parking. John Colwell asked for a clarification of the parking violations and stated the landscaping and trees have been planted for a reason and feels there are mitigating circumstances. Molnar said the owners should not be planting a screen now to block a very nicely restored house. Cheryl Colwell said the restaurant is only in operation from 6:00-9:00 p.m. and added she would be willing to remove one of the tables in order to conform to parking requirements. Winston questioned the owners about the Minor Land Partition. Cheryl Colwell said it will not be divided. When questioned about the garage, John Colwell said they do not want to lose the garage. Also, it seems to be a moot point to try and screen one parking space when all the residences in the area use their own unscreened parking. (At 10:00, Hook moved and Skibby seconded to extend the meetb~g. Tl~e motion passed unan#nously.) Hook said he would like to see Staff work with the owners because he feels it is a good use of the property. Chambers agreed they should work together, however, he also feels they should not give away rules which have already been adopted. He added the building is very attractive and it would be nice to be able to see it. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes March 2, 1994 Page 7 Knox suggested the owners work with Big A1 to share parking spaces during the few hours that overlap. Hook moved to recommend approval of the application with the direction that Staff work with the owners to solve the parking problems, without compromising the density of parking on the front drive, while keeping the two already approved spaces and not adding more. Chambers seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed. PA 94-O43 Site Review 362, 366, and 370 Lithia Way Greenewood Homes/Don Greene Molnar conveyed the applicant has been working with the Review Board for this proposal to add a second story. The building is not a typical 1950's structure. The applicant has incorporated suggestions and changes and Staff appreciates the time the applicant has spent with the Review Board. Since the location is in a very visible spot, Molnar said the Commission needs to feel comfortable with the decision made tonight. Staff concerns include the windows on the second floor (North and East elevations), points of entry (something lacking?), HVAC equipment on the roof top, and that the applicant come in to work out a sign program so problems are not created for individual businesses. Staff is recommending approval of this application with conditions as noted in the Staff Report. When questioned by Ennis regarding access requirements, Don Greene stated he has met with Building Official Mike Broomfield and all requirements will be met. Greene then presented a color rendition of the building with the second story. Chambers said he felt the scope and scale of the entry door does not pull you in. Lewis suggested the front door have more of a wood-like surface, which would give the entrance a different look. Ennis said he was sorry he had not attended a Review Board meeting with the applicant, but felt there is still a need to break up the massing. (At 10:30, Skibby moved and Chambers seconded to extend the meet#~g. Tl~e motion was unanimously passed.) Hook moved to recommend approval of this action to the Planning Commission, while advising the applicant to look closer at the doors (with the suggestion that heavier, wooden ones be used), and also that he work with Staff on the signage. Winston seconded the motion, and it passed with all voting aye except Ennis. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes March 2, 1994 Page 8 PA 94-044 Conditional Use Permit and Site Review 31 South Second Street Michael and Laurie Gibbs The Staff Report was given by Molnar. He stated the original application in 1986 was for a five-unit motel. This application is to expand the existing Enders House from four units to nine units. Seven units will be in the house and two will be in the carriage house. Many years ago, the roof burned on the house and the applicant intends to reconstruct the third story, making it as compatible as possible with the original house. The target uses would generate higher traffic than the proposed use. Staff feels the design is compatible and is recommending approval. Skibby questioned the design. He said the Review Board did not see the actual elevations, only a photo copy of the original house. He said he was expecting to see a restoration, but the elevations turned in for this application are a departure of the original design. He asked the owner if the design could be more original. Michael Gibbs responded he needed more room on the top floor to make the project viable. He explained that according to his contractor, more space would be required in order to get more head room. He will match the design as close as possible. Lewis asked if Gibbs would consider using double windows in the front, and Gibbs replied it could probably work out. Ennis and Mitchell said they did not feel the need to have all double windows on the third floor and turret. Gibbs said that while the design won't be the same as the original, it will have an architectural interest in town and will be compatible. When questioned about ADA standards by Ennis, Gibbs answered one unit will be designed for the handicapped, the project will include handicapped parking, paths, etc. Lewis declared it is important to maintain the shingle pattern on the third story. Gibbs also stated he will put the chimney back, but it will not be functional. With a motion by Hook and second by Winston, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to recommend approval of this application. BUILDING PERMITS Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of February follow: 253 Third Street Jerome White/E. Ellingson Remodel/Addition 15 South Pioneer Street OSFA Addition Ashland Historic Commission Minutes March 2, 1994 Page 9 208 Oak Street Tim Cusick/Lance Pugh Remodel 124 Strawberry Lane Christine Crawley Remodel/Addition 163 Granite Street Frances Sharkey Remodel 192 Harrison Street Carol Howser Garage Conversion 166 East Main Street John Schweiger Remodel 586 "B" Street Sybil Maddox Remodel 140 Alida Street Stella Gordon Shed Demolition 570 Siskiyou Boulevard Laura Shrewsbery Addition 139 East Main Street Five Rivers Sign REVIEW BOARD Following is the schedule (until the next meeting) for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday at least from 3:00 to 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department: March 3 March 10 March 17 March 24 March 31 Hook, Lewis and Skibby Mitchell, Winston, Lewis and Skibby Hook, Winston, Wood, Chambers and Skibby Skibby Ennis, Wood and Skibby OLD BUSINESS Graffiti in Ashland The Commission discussed the draft letter prepared by Wood. With a few minor changes, it was decided it should be forwarded to the Mayor and Council. National Historic Preservation Week The Committee will meet next Monday to work on a schedule of events for inclusion in the bill stuffer. NOTE Due to time constraints, there was no report regarding City space needs, Railroad Park, seismic retrofitting of old buildings, or the marker repair at the Ashland Conetety. NEW BUSINESS Jackson County Register of Historic Landmarks Although time had run out, the Commission acknowledged its support of Jackson County's review of historic resources in the Ashland area. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes March 2, 1994 Page 10 March 2, 1994 'ahjed.' Ashland Planning Commission Ashland Historic Commission PLANNING ACTION 94-042 We have voted unanimously tonight to recommend denial of Planning Action 94192. We request that you call this action for a public hearing. Our reasons for objecting to an extension of the Conditional Use Permit are as follows: 1) 2) 3) We have serious concerns about the scale and height of the structure planned for this site. This concem was expressed by several Historic Commission members in October of 1992. Tonight this view (with three new members on the Commission) was unanimous. We feel the design as presented is not compatible with the site. The design presents safety hazards for traffic and pedestrians. Traffic taming onto Helman Street from Lithia Way will have trouble seeing vehicles exiting the motel and vice versa. Pedestrians leaving the motel for the Plaza will very likely attempt to cross Lithia Way to the median island (the logical crossing), but no crossing is planned here. We object to the condition the site has been left in for the past 15 months, proving to be both an eyesore and a safety hazard to the citizens of Ashland. We have no confidence that a year's extension will result in anything except another year of the same.