I. CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
|Troy Brown, Jr.
|Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
||Stefani Seffinger, absent
Planning Manager Maria Harris announced the annual planning commission training by the American Planning Association would be April 29, 2020. Senior Planner Derek Severson announced the annexation of PA-T3-2019-00001, 1511 Highway 99 was continued to Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. The proposed site visit to the 476 North Laurel Street cottage housing development in lieu of a Study Session January 28, 2020, was postponed.
III. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES
Commissioner Dawkins noted the Revitalize Downtown Ashland Committee had met recently.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. December 10, 2019 Regular Meeting
Commissioner Brown/Thompson m/s to approve the minutes of December 10, 2019. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
V. PUBLIC FORUM
Would email the Commission a list of the best EV charging sites. He spoke on the amps required for charging an electric vehicle. He went on to speak about rooftop solar panel systems.
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2019-00015, 459 Russell Street.
The Commission had no ex parte contacts on the matter. One edit moved the last sentence regarding easements in Section 3. DECISION 8(i)
to Section 10 i)
Commissioner Harper/Brown m/s to approve the Findings for PA-T2-2019-00015, 459 Russell Street as amended. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
VII. TYPE I PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 appealing PA-T1-2019-00080
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 145 North Main Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: BC Partners IV, LLC/Donn Comte
APPELLANT: Donn Comte
DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will consider an appeal by the applicant of the Staff Advisor’s approval of a request for Site Design Review approval for proposed exterior changes including new doors, windows and siding to a contributing property within a Historic District for the property located at 145 North Main Street. The subject property is located in the Skidmore Academy Historic District, and is designated the “Ashland Tire Shop” building – more recently “Hank’s Foreign Automotive” - a historic contributing resource within the district. No changes are proposed to the site development, layout, orientation or use. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low-Density, Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 391E09BB; TAX LOT: 3503.
Chair Pearce read the rules of the Public Hearing for both hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioner Thompson, Norton, Brown, Harper and Pearce declared no ex parte contact and no site visits. Commissioner Dawkins had no ex parte contact but knew the site well.
Senior Planner Derek Severson submitted two exhibits into the record (see attached
). He provided a presentation (see attached
|• Vicinity Map
• Gas station in 1936
• 1979 CUP Site Landscaping Plan
• Historic District Inventory Listing
• Photos of the site
• Original Request
• Historic Commission Recommendations
|• Historic Commission Recommendations
• Historic Commission background and credentials
• Staff Decision
• Appeal Issues #1, 2 and 3
• American Plywood Association (APA)
The Appeal issues included:
1. The Historic Commission did not effectively review the plans nor the evidence submitted which illustrated that the original siding is a combination of vertical metal siding and vertical T1-11 siding.
Staff referred to the Rehabilitation Standard regarding siding in AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.d. The applicant provided additional materials after the Historic Commission’s review. It did not include an extension of the 120-day clock for further review by the Historic Commission. The building was re-sided in 1980. Staff concluded the T1-11 was not the original siding used in 1936. The applicant should utilize 1 x 8 tongue and groove siding or stucco as an alternative with a modification that staff provide another compatible horizontal siding treatment.
2. The Historic Commission also improperly applied residential standards to a building which is commercial.
The Historic Commission’s recommendations and the Staff Advisor’s decision were based on AMC 18.4.2.050.C and AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2. The property was in the Skidmore Academy Historic District and noted in the National Register of Historic Places. It was residentially zoned with a conditional use permit for commercial use.
3. Lastly, the gable detail does not denote what is the actual historical siding for the building being vertical T1-11 and the vertical metal siding.
The Historic Commission recommended the gable ends of the original part of the building include 1 x 8 tongue and groove siding. The T1-11 siding was not the original siding. It was used in the 1979-1980 remodel. Historic District Development standards prohibited vertical siding unless it was the original siding used.
Staff recommended the appeal be denied and the original staff approval be upheld with conditions.
Questions of Staff
Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning & Development Services/
Submitted an exhibit into the record (see attached
). She provided a presentation (see attached
|• Photos of 145 North Main Street
• Zoning Information
• Applicant’s Current Objectives for Subject Property
• Building Areas Needing Repair
• Site Plan Submittals
• Permits Issued by City for repairs per
• Confirmation that repairs have been completed
per Engineer’s Report
• Applicant’s Material Submitted to the
City and Historic Commission
• Compatible New Siding illustration
• Statement explaining the specific issues bring
raised on appeal
• Historic District Development Standards
• Rehabilitation Standards Existing Buildings and Additions
• Ashland Historic Preservation Plan
• Photos of the subject property
• Phone call from Hank Singmaster confirming original siding
• Historic Evidence of Original Vertical Metal Siding
• Historic Evidence of Original T1-11 Siding
• Recommendations of this Historic Commission Signed by the
Department of the Community Development Director
• Recommendations of Historic Commission
• Applicant Wishes to Conform to Guidelines by Using a
Compatible Vertical Siding
• Approved Renovation at 96 N. Main “Brothers” Approved
• Applicant’s Preferred Replacement Siding Finish
• Applicant Statement
• Example of Period Garage Doors
Ms. Gunter thought the conditions of approval requested imitation materials by requiring horizontal siding or suggesting stucco. She addressed the following Historic Commission recommendations in the Findings from December 19, 2019:
a. The applicant shall restore or duplicate the entablature (horizontal architectural details under the eave line of the roof), including the enclosed soffit, along the entire North Main Street façade of the building and along the original office structure (i.e. brick entry feature) on the Bush Street façade. (Rehabilitation Standard AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.b. & c. See Photos 1 and 2 above).
The applicant agreed to the entablature details at the original office brick entry feature. They disagreed with the North Main Street façade having an enclosed soffit. It was added in 1980 to support the gutter system. They also disagreed to the siding recommendations.
b. Smooth 1 x 8 tongue and groove siding, or another compatible horizontal siding to be reviewed by the Review Board and approved by the Staff Advisor, shall be used in place of the exiting T1-11 siding on all sides of the building. The gable ends of the building include tongue and groove siding which the Historic Commission determined to be indicative of the original external building materials. In lieu of horizontal siding, stucco would also be an acceptable alternative, as it was a common exterior building material for commercial buildings and gas stations during the period of significance. (Rehabilitation Standard AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.d.)
The applicant disagreed with the recommendations for siding and wanted to use T1-11 or Board and Batten in a vertical orientation.
c. That the exterior building colors shall be similar to the existing exterior colors including white and gray, along with the brick on the original office structure, as proposed by the applicant (Rehabilitation Standard AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.e.)
The applicant agreed to use black, white, grey and red brick colors used on the original office structure.
d. The windows on the original office structure (i.e., the brick entry feature) shall be true divided lights (i.e. with the glass divided into small panes) on the North Main Street and Bush Street facades to match the original windows. (Rehabilitation Standard AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.g. See Bush Street side of the building in Photo 2, above).
The applicant agreed to match the windows on the original office.
e. The applicant shall submit architectural drawings as specified in AMC 18.5.2.040.4.d (e.g. section drawings and drawings of architectural details) with the building permit submittals. The Historic Commission strongly recommended that the Historic Review Board be allowed to review and comment on these architectural drawings prior to submittal of a building permit application.
The applicant disagreed. The application was not a proposed development and they had already submitted architectural drawings.
f. Historically compatible garage doors shall be utilized, and a sample profile shall be provided with the building permit application.
The applicant disagreed. It was not applicable. The Historic Commission was applying residential standards to a commercial property. A permit should not be required to replace damaged garage doors on a commercial building.
Questions of the Appellant
Commissioner Thompson addressed statements from the applicant that indicated the vertical metal siding was original on the exterior. Ms. Gunter explained the October 16, 2019 Findings spoke to metal siding. The back of the building was metal. The majority was covered with corrugated metal in a vertical seam pattern. The Historic Commission was not aware the back of the building was metal siding and had not seen the photos.
Commissioner Dawkins asked why using vertical or horizontal siding was an issue. Ms. Gunter responded it was a precedence issue. The Historic Commission required something that just a block away in the Historic District, was approved. It was principal and there were financial implications.
Ms. Gunter clarified Mr. Singmaster inherited the subject property from his father who was the original owner.
Rebuttal by Appellant
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioner Brown thought the metal siding appeared to be vertical although it was difficult to confirm in the photos. Commissioner Thompson agreed and added the Historic Commission had not been informed the back part of the building was metal.
The Commission discussed using T1-11 vertical plywood and the gable. Ms. Harris clarified the gable end of the corner element was the original structure. Commission comment noted the applicant had the burden to show the original siding was vertical and they could not. A statement from the 1979 project had approved using vertical siding and possibly indicated vertical siding was not on the original building.
Commissioner Harper/Norton m/s to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Historic Commission. DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Harper thought the burden was on the applicant to show that the original siding from 1936 was vertical. Commissioner Brown agreed. Commissioner Thompson explained the original building from 1936 was the front office and what was behind it. The bay was added in 1979. She thought there was some evidence in the back area of metal siding that was vertical. It might meet the standard. Chair Pearce and Commissioner Norton agreed. Commissioner Thompson inquired about the garage doors. Mr. Severson clarified the standards did not speak directly to details on garage doors and were not included in the recommendation. Ms. Harris added there was not a specific design standard just that they had to be compatible. Chair Pearce noted the applicant’s objection to submitting drawings and thought submitting drawings was a reasonable request. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Thompson, Dawkins, Pearce, Norton and Brown, NO; Commissioner Harper, YES. Motion failed 5-1.
Commissioner Thompson/Dawkins m/s to grant the appeal of PA-T1-2019-00080 only in so far as the Condition that requires installation of horizontal siding with what the applicant proposed. DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Thompson confirmed the motion would allow the applicant to do vertical siding. Ms. Harris clarified the applicant was replacing T1-11 and corrugated metal siding with board and batten siding with 2-inch battens and 12-inch on center. Chair Pearce confirmed they were denying all other aspects of the appeal. Commissioner Thompson confirmed the applicant would still have to submit drawings and follow Planning staff’s advice on compatible conditions. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Brown, Thompson, Norton, Dawkins and Pearce, YES; Commissioner Harper, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
VIII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2019-00012
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 945 Tolman Creek Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Sean Darrell / Rogue Planning & Development
DESCRIPTION: The application is request for a three-unit/four-lot Outline and Final
Plan subdivision approval and Site Design Review permit to allow the construction of a
three-unit Cottage Housing Development for the property at 945 Tolman Creek Road. The
existing structure is proposed to be divided into two units, and a third 400 square foot cottage unit is to be constructed at the rear of the property.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5;
ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 391E14CA; TAX LOT: 800.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioner Thompson, Pearce, Harper and Brown had no ex parte contact. Commissioner Norton and Dawkins declared no ex parte contact and one site visit.
Senior Planner Derek Severson submitted an exhibit into the record (see attached
). He provided a presentation (see attached
• Cottage Housing Proposal
• Vicinity Map
• Proposed Site Plan
• Landscape/Wildfire Plan
• Tolman Creek Road Frontage
• Existing Residence
• Units 1 & 2
• New Unit #3
• Tree Commission Recommendation
Staff recommended approval with the conditions in the draft Findings.
Questions of Staff
Mr. Severson confirmed Unit #2 would have a kitchen. The units would be sold individually as part of the subdivision. The lot size complied with the code. There would also be fire separation between units when they divided the existing dwelling.
Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning & Development Services/
Provided a presentation (see attached
• Aerial Map
• Cottage Site Plan
• Photos of Unit #1 and #2