ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION

  DRAFT Minutes

September 8, 2004

Community Development/Engineering Services Building – 51 Winburn Way – Siskiyou Room

Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Keith Swink, Tom Giordano, Alex Krach, Rob Saladoff, Terry Skibby, Sam Whitford, and Jay Leighton
Absent Members: None

Council Liaison: John Morrison
High School Liaison: None Appointed
SOU Liaison: None Appointed
Staff Present: John McLaughlin, Community Development Director, Billie Boswell, Administration

CALL TO ORDER

At 7:05 p.m., Chairman Dale Shostrom called the meeting to order.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Skibby pointed out that the National Register Nomination for the Lithia Springs Property was removed from the “Old Business” section of the agenda and should be reinstated. Skibby moved to approve the August 8, 2004 minutes as revised. With a second by Krach, the motion was approved with all voting aye.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Planning Action 2004-110

Conditional Use Permit

Robert Saladoff

150 Church Street

Rob Saladoff recused himself from the Commission as the owner of the subject property.  Most members had site visits; none had ex parte contacts.

McLaughlin clarified that Historic Commission members may not represent a client for a fee in front of the body in which they sit, but Mr. Saladoff can present this action because he is the property owner and it is his own project.

McLaughlin related that the City had received a letter from Mark & CiCi Brown of 171 Church Street, an email from Dave Hoxy of 174 Church Street and a letter from Lou Nash and Kate Thill of 88 Baum Street.  The letter from Lew Nash and Kate Thill requested that the project be called up for a public hearing in front of the Hearings Board, probably in October.

McLaughlin explained that the Saladoff’s are proposing a new residence on a vacant lot.  The owners propose to construct a house with total floor area in excess of of the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) allowed by ordinance.  The Maximum Permitted Floor Area for the parcel 3, 249 square feet, while the proposed residence is 3,557 square feet or 9% greater than allowed by ordinance.  The ordinance provides for up to 25% more floor area with an approved Conditional Use Permit. City staff felt the application is justified because of the shape and larger size of the lot, the fact that the street profile conforms to other homes in the area and the additional square footage is not visible from the public right-of-ways. 

Skibby confirmed that the access to the property would be off an easement alley rather from the front of the home off Church Street. Skibby also confirmed that the connector between the two portions of the house was included in the square footage.

There being no further questions of City staff, the applicant shared additional information regarding the design proposal including the overall height and massing of the house, the access, size and shape of the lot and functionality for their family.

Skibby asked the applicant if the lack of access from the front and the requirement for the second entry put the house over the maximum size. Saladoff explained no one item caused the overage, but it was a combination of the overall design limitations and the requirements for their family.

Leighton pointed out the connector portion has a flat roof connecting the single story section in the rear and is not visible from the right-of-way.

Shostrom clarified that the square footage of the neighbor’s house as listed in the Saladoff’s application does not include a proposed addition.

There being no further questions of the applicant, Shostrom opened the meeting for public comment. 

Lew Nash of 88 Baum St, felt some of the criteria presented by the applicants were not factual and the scale and impact of the home would be detrimental to the neighborhood.

Saladoff asked Mr. Nash if his calculations took into consideration of the ratio between the house and lot sizes. Mr. Nash confirmed they did not.

There was no further public comment.

In rebuttal, the applicant stated there was no intention to mislead.  Of 27 homes in his study the ratio of house to lot size was 17.1% where his house is 20.4%.  However, the scale for the size of the lot and the impact to the neighborhood was minimal.

The public hearing was closed and the Commission discussed some of the criteria issues as they related to the Saladoff’s proposal.

Skibby moved to recommend approval of this application as presented.  Whitford seconded the motion and it passed in a roll call vote with Giordano, Krach, Shostrom, Skibby, Swink, and Whitford voting aye and Leighton voting nay.

Planning Action 2004-115

Conditional Use Permit

Dave & Jamie Kaufman

724 Iowa Street

Most members had site visits but no ex-parte contact. Chairman Shostrom said he had a conflict of interest due to being employed by the owners early in the project.  As a result, Shostrom recused himself and Vice Chair Skibby took over as chair of the meeting.

McLaughlin explained the applicants had already been approved for a building permit to slightly expand the footprint of the first floor and to add a new partial second story on their 7,137 square foot lot.  This application would add an additional 197 square feet to the second story above the garage that would cause the total square footage of 1858 (including attached garage) to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area by 8.2%.  Although the addition adds mass to front of the house, it is stepped back 50 feet from Iowa Street and 38 feet from the front of the home and is minimally visible from the street. City staff’s opinion is because of the smaller size of the lot in relationship to the relatively modest size of the proposed project, the mass and bulk of the home will be comparable to the existing mix in the neighborhood.

There being no further questions of City staff, Larry Medinger, the owner’s representative, shared additional information regarding the design proposal and how it relates to the existing neighborhood. 

Leighton asked the owners to clarify the footprint of the original house compared to what was being added both in the approved addition and this proposed addition. 

Whitford asked the owner’s to explain the reasons for two front entries.  The owners said that both entries were part of the existing house, but the secondary entry, closest to the garage, was set back significantly from the main entry at the front of the house. 

Krach felt the design had a contemporary look similar to those found on modern townhouses.  Medinger said because the existing home is so small, they incorporated various hip roofs and gables and offset the second story to add square footage to what currently is a modest craftsman design.

There being no further questions of the applicants, and no one in the audience to speak, the public hearing was closed.

Leighton reminded the commission that the original application for the first addition was turned down by the Hearing Review Board due to the design being unbalanced and inconsistencies between the two entry designs.

Whitford commented that with the second addition above the garage, the design was much more balanced.

Whitford moved to recommend approval of Planning Application 2004-115 subject to a redesign of the main entry to match the secondary entry. After discussion, Whitford amended the motion to recommend removing the proposed pergola and adding a porch roof similar to the design of the other entry and presenting the revised design to the Historic Review Board for approval. The motion was seconded by Giordano and passed in a roll call vote with all participating members voting aye.

ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA

The Commission discussed reviewing “phased” projects when the full scope of the project is unknown.  McLaughlin stated that staff needs to review the process and, possibly, require a written statement from the applicant that they are willing to take the risk that approval of the final phase and overall design could be denied.

McLaughlin also stated that communication with the applicant should be improved when a design is denied by the Historical Review Board.  He recommended that these decisions be recorded in the City’s computerized permit tracking system, Eden, so Staff can review the concerns with the applicant and give them the opportunity to submit a revised design to the Board before issuance is approved.

Shostrom recommended the form used by the Historical Review Board be improved to provide a better record of concerns and decisions.  Skibby agreed and suggested the copies of these forms be organized in a file or notebook that can be available to the Board or Commission as needed.

Discussion followed regarding design requirements necessary to begin identifying specific criteria needed to make a good decision on Conditional Use permits with regard to the new Maximum Permitted Floor Area ordinance. 

OLD BUSINESS

Review Board  – Following is the September schedule for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department:

Project Assignments for Planning Actions

Co-Sponsorship with Conservation Commission for Fall Workshop – McLaughlin will have Staff discuss the Historic Commission’s desire to develop historic requirements and Conservation compatibility in the form of an educational pamphlet or booklet and report their priorities and response back to the Commission.  They will also inform the Conservation Commission that a Historic Commission member(s) will attend their October meeting.

(A motion was made by Leighton to extend the meeting for an additional 15 minutes.  Swink seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously).

Memo to Council Regarding Authorization for Multiple Listing Survey for National Register of Historic Places—Houses or areas outside of the Historic Districts will require individual nominations as a Special Designation.

Possible National Register Nomination for Lithia Springs Property – McLaughlin said the Parks Director indicated the lease extension is on hold until it is known whether or not pursuing a National Historic designation would affect the Gun Club existence.  Additional discussion with Parks needed to determine specific information they need to make their decision.

Brown Bag Lunch Ideas – Old House Fair – Leighton will follow up.

Single Family Residential Design Standards – A sub-committee may need to be appointed to start developing standards.

NEW BUSINESS

Krach will review mail and share with the Committee any items of note.

McLaughlin informed the Committee that training is being developed to streamline meetings to minimize the time commitments of all of the commissions.  This information will be shared with the Commission in the near future.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

The next Historic Commission meeting will be on October 6, 2004 at 7:00 pm in the Siskiyou Room.

ADJOURNMENT

With a motion by Skibby and second by Leighton, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m.