HISTORIC COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES
Community Development/Engineering Services Building –
Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Keith Swink, Rob Saladoff, Tom Giordano, Terry Skibby, Jay Leighton, Alex Krach, Sam Whitford and Henry Baker
Absent Members: None
Council Liaison: Absent -
SOU Liaison: None Appointed
Staff Present: Maria Harris, Senior Planner; Bill Molnar, Planning Manager; Billie Boswell, Administration
CALL TO ORDER – REGULAR MEETING
At 7:06, Chairman Dale Shostrom called the regular meeting to order.
Ms. Leighton moved to approve the April 6, 2005 minutes. With a second by Mr. Whitford, the motion was approved unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Continuance of Planning Action 2005-00084
Site Review & Administrative Variance
Archerd & Dresner, LLC & Redco, LLC
Mr. Saladoff explained that although he had to leave the April 6, 2005 Historic Commission meeting early and did not participate in the discussion of the Northlight project, he felt that he was familiar enough with the project and the issues to fairly hear the continuance. Mr. Giordano expressed concerns that Mr. Saladoff’ had not fully heard all the comments raised by both the applicants and the public and should not participate. Mr. Molnar said the Commission could allow him to participate but not vote. Mr. Skibby felt Mr. Saladoff was sufficiently informed to participate and to vote. Mr. Swink felt he should at least participate to be brought up to speed to participate in any future hearings.
Mr. Skibby made a motion to allow Mr. Saladoff to participate. Mr. Baker seconded the motion. The approval vote was unanimous. Mr. Skibby made a second motion to allow Mr. Saladoff to vote, which was seconded by Mr. Baker. Mr. Shostrom, Ms. Leighton and Mr. Giordano abstained. The remaining Commissioners passed the motion unanimously.
Mr. Molnar reviewed the Staff Report Addendum highlighting some of the concerns of the Planning Commission and the Traffic Safety Commission and some of the changes the applicants have proposed to address them.
Mr. Molnar commented on
There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Shostrom asked the applicant to present their material.
Evan Archerd, 550 E Main Street, Ashland, along with other design team members, Russ Dale, Jerome White, Hal Dresner, Craig Stockbridge, and George Kramer talked about the collaborative efforts of the public meetings, the City staff, the development and design teams and the City Commissions to produce the current design as it relates to the vision of the downtown. Their intent at this presentation is to address the specific issues of concern that came out of the Historic Commission and the Planning Commission meetings including the public comments.
Mr. Stockbridge, using a 3-dimensional “fly-around” computer presentation program, showed the design details of the changes made. A newly raised parapet was added to the corner at Lithia & First streets for a total height on that corner of about 45 feet. The two entries on the
It was pointed out that the canopy was lowered to 10 feet and is 5 feet deep. The canopy was kept close to the building to encourage the public to be drawn to the windows and entries and still provide protection.
On the
The above ground water feature in the breezeway was removed to maximize the public space. Public art would be added instead. Ms. Leighton felt the water feature would be missed. Recesses were also added to the third floor balcony. The rear elevation on Building 1 was modified to bring the Moderne styling around the corner. Chairman Shostrom still felt the rear elevations of the two buildings were still too similar to break up the massing. Other commissioners did not agree, feeling it added to the transition from commercial to residential.
The exterior materials on the row houses were switched to show more wood shingles and less stucco to help them blend better with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The concrete planter boxes were removed and window boxes were added to the ground floors to soften and enhance a residential look. Signage “blades” were added as a design element and to encourage home occupations.
There was some discussion of the design of the public spaces such as benches and a grated walkway overlooking the bio-swale area and more windows and landscaping on the blank walls.
Mr. Molnar raised a concern that the signage plan may be important to the overall look of the finished building. Mr. Skibby also said the utility meters and boxes would have an impact. The applicants said the transformers were designed in underground vaults and the meters would be placed in unobtrusive areas and obscured with landscaping.
There being no further questions of the applicants, Chairman Shostrom asked for comments from the public.
Mr. Street discussed some of the design standards he felt were not met such as minimal variance in height, use of horizontal rather than vertical windows, historic openings, orientation, scale & massing, appearance of the townhouses as they relate to residences in the Railroad District, lack of weather protection, lack of public space, parking not divided sufficiently, and that the project doesn’t meet ALL of the design standards of paragraph 3 of the Downtown Design Standards.
Colin Swales,
Chairman Shostrom asked for rebuttal from the applicants.
Mr. Archerd read from page 6 of the Planning Department’s Staff Report Addendum describing how the Downtown Standards should be applied to new buildings.
Mr. White pointed out that most of the 18 design standards
Mr. Kramer talked about the difficulty of building on the north side of
Mr. Stockbridge addressed Mr. Swales comment about the height of Building 2 being lowered. Six feet of the interior space is to handle the mechanical requirements of an oncology clinic. Also, the height allows the use of taller windows to allow daylighting as an energy saver.
Mr. Dresner also pointed out how public input insisted on a strong housing component, which the project provides.
Chairman Shostrom closed the Public Meeting.
A motion was made by Mr. Giordano and seconded by Ms. Leighton and unanimously approved to extend the meeting to 10:30 PM.
The Commissioners agreed to focus on those elements of the Design Standards that still needed improvement. Discussion followed on each of the eleven original recommendations and whether or not the current changes proposed in this meeting satisfied the appropriate standards.
A motion was made by Ms. Leighton and seconded by Mr. Skibby and unanimously approved to extend the meeting to 11:00 PM.
Mr. Krach made a motion to recommend this action be continued and that the issues identified as still needing to be addressed be brought back to the Historic Commission for review at the next meeting. The motion also asked the Planning Commission to consider the Historic Commission’s recommendations prior to making a decision on the project.
1. Row Houses – Two thirds of the Commission support the current design with some tweaking of the exterior materials to improve the transition into the residential neighborhood.
2. Building Separation – Consensus from the Commission that the distance between the two commercial buildings is still too narrow for the heights of the buildings. It was suggested the breezeway should fan out toward the parking area or deleting a portion of the third story (cascading effect) or make the full length of the breezeway 40 feet.
3. Recessed Entries – Consensus from the Commission that the two recesses on Building 1 off
4. Utilities and Sign Program – Illustrate location and general design of all exterior utility boxes and meters and define a signage plan.
5. Rear Elevations – General consensus that the rear elevations are sufficient with differing materials used.
6. Height of Buildings – General consensus that there is sufficient variation in building heights.
7. Window Orientation and Amount of Glazing – General Consensus that windows meet daylighting and energy needs, and the larger windows balance the size and mass of the buildings.
8. Rhythm – General consensus that the two buildings share vertical elements appropriately.
9. Bulk and Scale of Row Houses – General consensus that the row houses are appropriate in this transition area.
10. Weather Protection – General Consensus that new lowered canopy design provides adequate protection but should be flush with façade to provide full protection.
11. Pedestrian Walkway Across Parking – General consensus that full 10 feet is necessary and that the area be protected with landscaping median (preferred) or structural elements (such as bollards).
Mr. Swink seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously.
Planning Action 2005-00670
Variance
Applicant: Sarah & Christopher Linvill
Chairman Shostrom explained the Linvills were requesting a Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 20 feet to 14 feet in order to construct a new residence.
The majority of the Commissioners visited the site.
Ms. Harris explained the site is a 5181 square foot, irregularly shaped lot on “C” Street. At this point “C” Street has an unusually large right of way of 70 feet, a large portion of which is undeveloped.
The Commissioners were in consensus that the irregularity of the lot, the unusually large right of way was adequate reasons for the variance. All were impressed by the design and felt it would enhance the neighborhood.
There being no one in the audience, the public meeting was closed.
Mr. Shostrom moved to approve the variance. Ms. Leighton seconded and it passed unanimously.
Planning Action 2005-00605
Conditional Use Permit
Applicant: Kenneth & Donna Rice
Mr. Krach asked to be recused, as he is an employee of one of the applicants.
Chairman Shostrom said Rices are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing guesthouse in the rear of the property to an accessory residential unit. There are no exterior changes. Mr. Whitford asked why this project required a planning action. Ms. Harris explained that they are remodeling and adding a small kitchenette. Due to the existing structure, no exterior changes and the location in the rear of a large lot, the Commissioners felt the request was reasonable.
Ms. Leighton moved to approve the request. Mr. Giordano seconded and it passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
May 5th |
Skibby, Swink, Leighton |
May 12th |
Skibby, Baker, Giordano |
May 19th |
Skibby, Saladoff, Shostrom |
May 26th |
Skibby, Whitford, Krach |
June 2nd |
Skibby, Leighton, Swink |
B. Project Assignments for Planning Actions
PA #2000-120 |
485 “A” Street (Steve Hoxmeier) |
Shostrom |
PA #2002-100 |
|
Leighton |
PA #2004-026 |
|
Giordano |
PA #2004-018 |
|
Swink |
PA #2004-100 |
80 Wimer (Tom & Kathy Petersen) |
Whitford |
PA #2004-102 |
832 “A” Street (Ilene Rubenstein) |
Saladoff |
PA #2004-110 |
|
Whitford |
PA #2004-115 |
|
Swink |
PA #2004-138 |
|
Saladoff |
PA #2004-150 |
87 |
Shostrom |
PA #2004-154 |
|
Leighton |
PA-#2004-160 |
|
Krach |
PL#2005-00039 |
150 N. Pioneer (Stan Potocki & Bruce McLean) |
Leighton |
C. National Historic Preservation Week, May 8-14, 2005 - Brochures are completed. Articles have been sent to both newspapers. The Banner will go up by the end of the week. Award Ceremony will be in the
D. Co-Sponsorship with Conservation Commission for Fall Workshop – Mr. Saladoff met with Joanne Krippaehne. Notes from the meeting will be added to the June Meeting packet.
E. Lithia Springs National Register Nomination – No report
F. Multiple Listing Survey for National Register of Historic Places - No report
G. Single Family Residential Design Standards – No report
NEW BUSINESS
COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA
ANNOUNCEMENTS
The next Historic Commission meeting will be on June 7, 2005 at 7:00 pm in the Siskiyou Room.