ASHLAND OREGON 2008 This publication has been funded with the assistance of a matching grant-in-aid from the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office and the National Park Service. Regulations of the U.S. Department of the Interior strictly prohibit unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age or handicap. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility operated by a recipient of Federal assistance should write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240 DRAFT ASHLAND PRESERVATION PLAN 2009-2018 Ashland Preservation Plan 2 Credits My deepest appreciation to all the helpful staff with the City of Ashland, especially Angela Barry and Maria Harris. I’m especially grateful to the Historic Commission for supporting this project. Special thanks to all of the historic property owners and Ashland residents who participated and provided valuable input. It has been a privilege to work with your community. Kimberli Fitzgerald, Fall 2008 Consultant: Kimberli Fitzgerald, MCP/CHP, Historic Preservation Consultant Historic Landmarks Commission: Dale Shostrom, Chair Terry Skibby, Vice-Chair Alexander Krach, Secretary Alison Renwick Keith Swink James Watkins Sam Whitford Henry Baker Tom Giordano Staff: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Maria Harris, Planning Manager Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Derek Severson, Associate Planner Angela Barry, Assistant Planner Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager Billie Boswell, Account Clerk April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Ashland Preservation Plan 3 CREDITS ..............................................................................................................2 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................5 HISTORIC OVERVIEW ........................................................................................6 EXISTING CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.....................9 Comprehensive Plan ............................................................................................................. 9 Development Code ................................................................................................................ 9 Types of Review................................................................................................................... 10 Current Review Process ..................................................................................................... 12 Ashland’s Resources .......................................................................................................... 13 Existing Incentive Programs .............................................................................................. 14 QUESTIONNAIRES FOR STAFF AND HLC MEMBERS ..................................15 Historic Commission Needs:.............................................................................................. 15 Staff Needs ........................................................................................................................... 17 SURVEY .............................................................................................................19 RECOMMENDED CODE REVISIONS ...............................................................21 Revision and Expansion of Design Standards for Exterior Changes in Residential Districts................................................................................................................................. 22 Adjustment of National Register District Boundaries...................................................... 28 Historic Commission Liaison to the Planning Commission/Hearings Board ............... 28 Enabling Language for the Historic Review Board .......................................................... 29 Establishment of a Local Inventory ................................................................................... 29 Additional Recommendations............................................................................................ 31 PRESERVATION PROGRAMS: ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS ..........................32 Survey and Inventory .......................................................................................................... 32 Ashland Preservation Plan 4 Economic Incentives ........................................................................................................... 33 Public Education Programs................................................................................................ 34 Commissioner Training and Networking .......................................................................... 35 PREFERRED PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND PROJECTS................................37 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.................................................................................39 APPENDICES.....................................................................................................49 Ashland Preservation Plan 5 Methodology The consultant worked with the City staff first to evaluate existing conditions relating to historic preservation within the City of Ashland. Questionnaires were distributed to both City staff and members of the Historic Landmarks Commission. Needs were then evaluated relating to historic preservation within the community. In order to understand these needs, we contacted owners of historic properties as well as contractors and developers, inviting them to participate in the online survey. A notice was also placed on the City of Ashland website and in the local newspaper, the Ashland Daily Tidings. Based upon input from these surveys and questionnaires, needs were identified in five different program areas. Recommendations for code changes and alternative projects to address these needs were presented to the Historic Commission for their input. After careful consideration and discussion, the Historic Commission identified their priorities for projects to accomplish in the next ten years within each program area, and an implementation plan was prepared. Ashland Preservation Plan 6 Historic Overview Ashland, Oregon, is a thriving cultural center in southern Oregon. Located in the upper Bear Creek region of the Rogue River Valley, Ashland is cradled by the Siskiyou Mountains on the city’s southern and western border and beautiful valleys extending toward the north. With over 21,000 residents, Ashland maintains the feel of a small rural community while providing economic and cultural opportunities available in large cities. Ashland sits on a portion of the original Applegate Trail that carried industrious and hopeful pioneers north from California to the Oregon Territory starting in 1846. With the Donation Land Claim Act of 1850, people were looking for arable land and temperate climates, and found both in the valleys of southern Oregon. As the population of the region grew, Jackson County was designated by the Territorial legislature on January 12, 1852. Soon after, a group of men from California, including Abel Helman and Eber Emery, traveled north and stopped at Ashland Creek. They decided to capitalize on the available water power, building a sawmill, and later a flourmill. As more settlers arrived and took land claims nearby, the area around the flourmill became a popular meeting spot, as farmers would exchange wheat for flour. A permanent road was built to provide access to the flourmill, and the town became known as Ashland Mills. Ashland’s development was steady in the early years. The economy was largely based around farming until the 1880s. In addition to wheat, farmers produced fruit and raised livestock. The first fruit nursery in Jackson County was built by Ashland resident Orlando Coolidge in the late 1860s. Ashland Woolen Mills was constructed in 1867, using local fleece to produce wool clothing and blankets. Residential growth accompanied the area’s economic growth, with residents constructing houses around the downtown Plaza and extending outward. In response to Ashland’s development, the Oregon State Legislature granted the town a charter on October 13, 1874. The 1880s brought railroad development and significant change to Ashland’s economic and residential development. Southern Pacific Railroad was constructing the Oregon and California Railroad to provide continuous service between Portland, Oregon, and San Francisco, California. Ashland was slated to be the meeting point of the northern and southern construction efforts. In anticipation of growth to come, a Railroad Addition plat that doubled the size of the town was recorded February 26, 1884. It was located north of Ashland’s downtown and provided space for residential and commercial development. In May of 1884 the first passenger train connected Portland and Ashland, and on December 17, 1887, a golden spike was driven into the railroad in Ashland, announcing the completion of the North-South line. The affect of the railroad on Ashland was remarkable. In addition to providing freight services that opened Ashland’s economy to outside markets, the passenger trains brought tourism to the town as well. Between 1880 and 1890, Ashland Preservation Plan 7 Ashland’s population rose from 842 to 1,784. In response to this growth and to better provide public services, Ashland was incorporated as a city in 1885. Ten new additions were platted in 1888 due to a continuous housing shortage for the rail workers, entrepreneurs, and new families that flooded the area. Providing quality education was a concern, too, leading to the reopening of the defunct Ashland Academy that had closed in 1879. In 1882 it became a state school, and is now known as Southern Oregon University. A Chautauqua, or educational and entertainment show, was established ten years later by local Methodists, providing education and amusement for Ashland’s citizens and visitors. Despite a short depression in the early 1890s, and another during World War I, the city thrived. Industry was growing strong, with orchards now selling Ashland fruit nationwide. Population grew steadily (5,020 in 1910), as did the city infrastructure. In 1910 the City paved roads near the central Plaza and purchased land around the dismantled flour mill and near the Chautauqua site to create what eventually became Lithia Park. A Carnegie Library was built in 1912 and construction continued in neighborhoods around the city. Construction also began on the Pacific Highway over the Siskiyou Mountains in 1913, including Ashland’s East Main and North Main Streets as part of the route. Significant changes occurred in the late 1920s and 1930s causing Ashland’s economic growth to slow drastically. Southern Pacific opted to reroute their rail service through the Natron Cut-off and halted continuous trains through Ashland in 1927. This combined with the 1929 stock market crash to create hardships for Ashland citizens. Railroad employees were forced to leave town, houses were left vacant, and tourism halted. The onset of World War II brought a revival to Ashland. The U.S. Army built Camp White just north of Medford in 1942. Nearly 110,000 soldiers were trained there and often visited Ashland on their free time. Homes were remodeled to provide space for renters, applications for building permits increased, and the rise in auto traffic brought alterations to Ashland’s roadways. In the post-war years, the city’s economy was boosted as sawmill operations became very successful. Entertainment and cultural exposure returned as plays resumed on the Chautauqua site in 1947. The Oregon Shakespeare Festival constructed their outdoor Elizabethan Theater in 1959 within the foundation wall of the original Chautauqua building. Ashland continued to grow and develop in the coming years. Interstate 5 opened in 1964, relieving traffic within the city. Ashland citizens began to petition for orderly, planned growth, resulting in the adoption of the city’s first zoning ordinance that year. After increasing interest in historic preservation, Ashland’s Historic Commission was established in 1975. The Commission established four areas of the city with significant historical resources, all of which were listed on the National Register of Historic Places between 1999 and 2002. They include the Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District, the Ashland Downtown Historic District, the Skidmore Academy Historic District, and the Siskiyou Hargadine Historic District. Ashland Preservation Plan 8 Today Ashland is a popular destination city. The moderate climate that attracted settlers 160 years ago still draws people from around the globe. Over 350,000 people visit the city each year to attend the many plays of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival and participate in outdoor sports and sightseeing. Southern Oregon University is also a central part of the city’s economy, and is a great resource for the community, serving approximately 5,000 students. In 2008, Ashland was named as a Smart21 Community for the second consecutive year. This award is granted by the Intelligent Community Forum to 21 communities around the world who display signs of intelligent growth and development. It is a notable achievement and an honor for Ashland, as the City was among only five recipients from the United States. Ashland Preservation Plan 9 Existing Cultural Resource Management Program Comprehensive Plan Ashland has had an established program for protecting historic resources for many years. Included within Ashland’s Comprehensive Plan adopted on November 2, 1982, there are policies and specific language relating to preservation, particularly in the Downtown and three residential districts which include the Railroad Addition, Siskiyou-Hargadine, and Skidmore Academy districts. While these areas of historic interest were identified early in the establishment of Ashland’s program, and a map was produced by the City in the 1970s, these four historic interest areas were not formally delineated until 1984 when the City of Ashland asked the Oregon SHPO for an opinion regarding the eligibility of these four areas of historic interest in preparation for an extensive housing rehabilitation project. In 1984 and 1988-1990 surveys were completed of these areas. In 1999 the Railroad Addition District was listed on the National Register, and in 2000 the Ashland Downtown District was listed . The Skidmore Academy Historic District was listed in 2001, and the Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic District was listed in 2002.1 The Historic Preservation component of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan includes nine policies related to historic preservation. Five of these policies are implemented through the land use process and identified in the Ashland Municipal Code.2 Development Code The Ashland Historic Commission (HC) was originally established in 1975 as a five member Historic Preservation Committee. Currently the Historic Commission is a nine-member, quasi-judicial body that meets monthly. A subset of this Commission is the three member Historic Design Review Board, which meets weekly to review building permit applications within the historic districts. The HC is bound by the procedural requirements and criteria set forth in Chapter 2.24, 18.72 and 18.108.20 of the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC).3 1 It should be noted that the boundaries for the four National Register Districts follow the boundaries of these areas of historic interest generally, but as adopted by the National Park Service, the boundaries do not match exactly. The map adopted by the Council with the Comprehensive Plan is Map I-1 and notes these original areas of historic interest boundaries, not the National Register District boundaries. 2 See Appendix # 1 3 See Appendix # 2 Ashland Preservation Plan 10 Ministerial Review Over the counter, City Staff approvals with Historic Review Board review; Examples: Building Permits that don’t require site review Planning Actions Type I Review by the Historic Commission recommendations to Staff; appeal to Planning Commission Examples: Exterior alteration to a structure individually listed on the National Register Site Review Partition Conditional Use Variance Historic Sign Type II Review by the Historic Commission recommendations to Planning Commission; appeal to Council Examples: Downtown Site Review over 2500 sq.ft Preliminary Plat Conditional Use Variance Type III Examples: Zone Change Comp. Plan/Map Change Annexation Legislative Amendments Initiated by Council, Planning Commission or resident; review by Planning Commission recommendation to Council Examples: Amend text of Land Use Ordinance to better conform with Comprehensive Plan. Types of Review Per AMC 18.108.020 there are three general types of procedures for land use actions: 1) Ministerial Actions; 2) Planning Actions and 3) Legislative Amendments. For projects located within one of the historic districts, either city staff, the Historic Review Board or the Historic Commission will review and comment on the proposal. It is rare that the Historic Commission would be involved in a Legislative Amendment, unless the text of the proposed amendments would directly affect the Historic Commission and its duties. The Historic Review Board primarily reviews Building Permits, and is involved in Ministerial Reviews for projects located within the historic districts. Normally sign and mechanical permits are considered Ministerial reviews, however per AMC 18.96.160 Historic Signs are reviewed as a Type I by the Historic Commission. The Historic Commission primarily reviews all Planning Actions for projects located within the local historic districts. In 2006, the Historic Commission reviewed a total of 15 projects, a majority of which were Conditional Uses, Site Design Reviews and Variances. Projects were both residential and commercial, with some new construction and some change of use and additions.4 In 2007 the Historic Commission reviewed a total of 14 projects, a majority of which were also Site Review, Variance and Conditional Uses. Projects included the construction of office and mixed use buildings as well as changes in use. 4 See Appendix #3 for total number and types of reviews Table 1: Types of Review Ashland Preservation Plan 11 In 2008, to date, the Historic Commission has reviewed approximately 20 projects. Projects primarily include Site Design, Conditional Use and Variance like in years past. However reviews of partition and physical and environmental constraints permits have also been reviewed. Projects include the construction of a new school as well as conversion of existing buildings to office use or travelers accommodations as well as change in use to allow the operation of an outdoor farmers market and the use of a school for artists workspaces and community events. One of the changes implemented by the new Ordinance is the requirement that any exterior alteration to a contributing commercial building requiring a building permit within a National Register District must be reviewed as a Type I before the Historic Commission. Site Design and Use Standards The Site Design and Use Standards were originally adopted by Ashland City Council in 1986. In 1992 these standards were replaced and the Detail Site Review Standards were added. In 1998 the Downtown Design Standards were added. For new construction, applicable standards can be found primarily in Section II, Basic Site Review Standards. These standards address orientation and scale, streetscape, landscaping, parking, designated creek protection, and noise and glare. Section II C-1g addresses the expansion of existing sites and buildings (ie if the building is to expand by 25%, then 25% of the site must be brought up to the standards outlined in this section). Certain properties within the downtown also fall within the Detail Site Review zone and have additional requirements relating to orientation and scale, streetscape, parking, buffering and screening, lighting and building materials. Additional requirements relating to orientation and scale, public spaces, transit amenities, and recycling are included for larger scale projects (above 10,000 square feet). These are included in Section II-C-3. Section IV-B Historic District Development includes eleven rehabilitation and remodel standards. Additionally, Section IV-C includes ten standards primarily relating to new development and renovation of existing structures within the historic districts. Criteria relating to height, scale, massing, setback, roof shapes, rhythm of openings, platforms, directional expression, sense of entry and imitation are included here. Illustrations, primarily demonstrating appropriate residential development, are utilized. Section VI, Downtown Ashland, of the Site Design and Use Standards includes additional standards relating to commercial buildings in the downtown. Six approval criteria (VI-1 through VI-6) are related to guiding new development downtown. Additional standards VI-A through I address height, setback, width, openings, vertical rhythms, roof forms, materials, and awnings for new construction or redevelopment of existing buildings. Illustrations demonstrating appropriate commercial development are presented. Several standards within this section specifically address the restoration or remodeling of existing structures. For example, Section VI-D-2 requires that the Ashland Preservation Plan 12 scale and proportion of altered or added building elements be compatible with the original architectural character of the building. Additionally, Section VI-J- 2 specifically requires that the visual integrity of the original building be maintained when altering or adding building elements. Section VI- J) 3) requires that restoration, rehabilitation or remodeling projects incorporate original design elements that were previously removed, remodeled or covered over. Current Review Process Historic Commission Review Currently the Historic Commission reviews certain Planning Actions for projects located within the designated local districts (those areas identified by Comp. Plan Map I-1).5 Typical reviews include Site Design Reviews, Conditional Uses, and Variances. The Historic Commission averages about 3-5 of these reviews a month. After the Historic Commission makes a recommendation to the Planning Commission about a Planning Action, specifically if that Planning Action involves the exterior alteration of an existing structure or new construction, individual Commissioners are assigned to monitor that project through its completion. Sometimes conditions of approval are placed upon a project requiring the Historic Commission to review specifics of a design prior to issuance of the Building Permit. Table 1: General Review Process for Projects within Local Historic Districts 5 Appendix 4 Building Permit Application Historic Review Board Recommendation to: -Property owner/Contractor -City Staff City Staff Approves and Issues Building Permit City Staff Denies Building Permit Planning Action Application Historic Commission Recommendation to -Property Owner/Contractor -Planning Commission Planning Commission Commission: -Approves -Approves with Conditions -Denies Appeal to Council Final Approval Approval to Apply for Building Permit Ashland Preservation Plan 13 Historic Review Board Three members of the Commission meet weekly as the Historic Review Board to review building permits for projects within historic districts which do not require Planning Actions. The three members who meet weekly vary. At each monthly Historic Commission meeting a schedule for the upcoming month is made. These meetings are informal and are not attended by City staff, and no minutes are taken. They are generally an opportunity for the Board to meet informally with the applicant and make suggestions and recommendations about improving design or compatibility issues. Ashland’s Resources Ashland’s historic resources are contained primarily within the four National Register historic districts, as well as within the four areas of historic interest. In addition, Ashland has 30 individual resources listed in the National Register. Ashland has four National Register Historic Districts: District Contributing Noncontributing Ashland Downtown District 73 27 Railroad Addition District 256 115 Siskiyou-Hargadine District 274 186 Skidmore Academy District 300 184 Ashland Preservation Plan 14 Additionally, there is a local sign inventory with three historic signs that have been designated.6 Other areas which have been surveyed include the Ashland North quadrant area which was surveyed in 2006 (95 Eligible Contributing/Significant, 40 Not Eligible, 5 Eligible/Out of Period). Recommendations regarding potential future historic districts were made as part of this project.7 Existing Incentive Programs The City of Ashland became a Certified Local Government (CLG) in 2000. The CLG program is a national program which offers non-competitive grants for historic preservation projects and programs to communities which are administered through the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. The annual grant through the Certified Local Government program administered through the State SHPO office is currently the primary source of funding for additional city preservation programs in Ashland. In addition, the Oregon State Special Assessment Program is available to any historic property owner who owns a contributing resource within a National Register district, as well as those which are individually listed in the National Register. In Ashland, currently 25 properties take advantage of Special Assessment program.8 Additionally, individually listed and contributing income producing properties are eligible for Federal Tax Credits through the National Park Service program. 10 properties have taken advantage of this program over the last ten years. The Historic Commission currently distributes Historic Preservation Awards annually during historic preservation week in May. Awards are given in several categories for outstanding historically compatible new construction and additions, as well as outstanding restoration work. An award is also given to an outstanding organization or individual for their work in the area of historic preservation in Ashland. 6 Designated signs include: the Varsity Theatre sign at 166 East Main Street, which is located in the Downtown Historic District. Another is the Peerless Rooms sign at 243 Fourth Street, which is located within the Railroad Historic District. The last is the Palm Motel sign at 1065 Siskiyou Blvd., which is not in a Historic District but is down near SOU on Siskiyou. 7 Kramer, George. MS. Kramer & Company. Ashland North Reconnaissance Level Survey, August 2006. 8 8 commercial and 17 residential Ashland Preservation Plan 15 Questionnaires for Staff and HLC Members Historic Commission Needs:9 The following needs were identified based upon Commissioner responses to the questionnaire. Training A majority of commissioners responded positively to the possibility of additional training which could include training about city codes and the duties of a Historic Commissioner as well as how to read construction and building plans. It was noted that it might be helpful to have more commissioners with design/history background. Additionally it was indicated that a mentoring program for new Commissioners would be beneficial. Development Code Overall the Commission is happy with the code and they appreciate its flexibility. It was expressed that the Commission relies heavily upon staff to interpret the code. Commissioners identified the need to amend the code so that it is more restrictive in certain cases. Additionally there is concern that some issues such as changing siding or window replacement are never reviewed by the Historic Commission or the Review Board because they don’t require a building permit and that this is causing the integrity of the historic districts to be compromised. Overall, Commissioners are happy with the current process. It was noted that there was an interest in the Commission having more input and authority to make final decisions than it currently does. Additionally, it was noted that the process needs to be more consistent, and that fluctuations in the way applications are handled in different situations can be frustrating. Education of Property Owners A majority of Commissioners felt that the Commission could improve their education of historic property owners. An idea was proposed suggesting that everyone who purchases a property in a historic district should get a handbook and be invited to the Review Board so that they know what is involved when they want to make changes to their property. Communication with Planning Commission and Council All respondents suggested communication between the Historic Commission, Planning Commission and Council could be improved. 9 A more complete summary of the questionnaires is located in Appendix #5. Ashland Preservation Plan 16 Preservation Programs Commissioners had several suggestions for additional programs including: Incorporation of archaeological resources in the interpretation of the city’s history and prehistory; Making new owners in the historic district aware of codes regarding historic preservation; Training for commissioners and attending training sessions and conferences and working closer with state affiliate, the Historic Preservation League of Oregon, the National Trust and the University of Oregon historic preservation program. Ashland Preservation Plan 17 Staff Needs The following needs were identified from the city staff: Development Code While overall staff feels that the current code is well balanced, it was noted that while the standards in Section IV-C of the Site Design and Use Standards work well for residential applications, there is sometimes difficulty in applying these standards to commercial projects, along with the associated standards for the Downtown and Detail Site Review. It has been a goal for both the Commission and staff to identify and implement more specific standards for exterior changes to contributing structures in the residential historic districts. Staff indicated that the changes as a result of the new Ordinance that went into effect on July 1 would not significantly change the current process. However several new requirements were noted, including: larger scale drawings with more detail, and Type I review by the HC of all exterior changes requiring building permits on commercial structures identified as contributing. Staff identified concern that changes to siding, roofing and windows are not reviewed, because they do not require permits. Additionally it was noted that the Commissioners are advisory only and have no authority to deny an application, which leads some applicants to forgo appearing before the Review Board. Review Process Staff noted that the new process implemented on July 1 will take additional time. Specifically, concerns were expressed about those applications that have to be reviewed by both the Tree and Historic Commissions as well as the Planning Commission. However, staff believed it was important to have a more thorough review. Some concern was expressed about the need to educate property owners that regardless of whether or not their property is historic, all applications within the districts must be reviewed by the Historic Commission. Additionally, it was noted that for some land use actions (which do not involve physical changes to a structure or site) it does not always make sense to bring it before the Historic Commission. Staff noted that sometimes there were issues related to running a formal meeting. Specifically, it may be necessary to provide additional training so that during a meeting it is clear that the proper process is being followed. Additionally, sometimes the make-up of the Review Board at any given meeting affects the consistency of the results, in that the same issues are not addressed in the same manner. In general staff noted that the Historic Commissioners were very helpful, and volunteered significant time to assist staff. Commissioners are available weekly and provide regular feedback on a variety of issues. Ashland Preservation Plan 18 Office Resources Staff stated that they knew of easily accessible maps available on-line and at the office. Maps are available to staff electronically, but only the district map is on the website. It was noted that the National Historic District boundaries do not match up with the local Ashland Historic District boundaries which can sometimes cause confusion. Staff felt that the historic inventories are well done and useful and that it might be useful to provide the inventory on-line to the public. Additionally it was noted that there is a need to organize old historic information resource files. Programs Staff identified a variety of different programs that could be beneficial to Ashland, including: additional identification and survey of historic structures outside the historic districts; educational programs such as brochures for homeowners; Historic Preservation Week; brown bag lunches on preservation topics such as historic window restoration; and special assessment programs to encourage restoration. Ashland Preservation Plan 19 Survey The survey distributed to stakeholders in Ashland’s Preservation Program was designed to identify general needs and goals within the community. In general, open ended questions were asked, allowing respondents to reply freely based upon their experience with preservation in Ashland. A total of 200 notices were distributed and we received about a 20 percent return (40 responses) to this survey.10 Respondents felt that the Downtown District was most in need of protection, with the Railroad District the next most in need. A majority of respondents felt that the City is doing a good job protecting Ashland’s historic resources through the code, however some felt that the City should have some requirements for basic maintenance of both structures and landscaping. There was some concern expressed about rental housing being detrimental to the fabric of the districts. Most Respondents felt that a majority of Ashland’s historic resources have been identified within the four districts. However, some respondents noted that local resources, such as small orchard and farm homes outside of these districts, especially farmhouses in the Bellview District, should be identified and protected. It was noted that an effort should be made to collect oral histories, in particular about the mill sites in Ashland. Overall a majority of respondents feel that they know what sort of work requires review, and they believe the process is fair. However, respondents felt that the City should make it easier to utilize energy and resource saving measures, such as solar energy, on historic structures. It was suggested that all of the city codes, ordinances and Site Design Standards relating to historic review and design criteria should be pulled into one section of the code, to make it easier for applicants, staff and Commissioners to understand the historic preservation portion of the code. Most respondents felt that additional historic preservation programs are necessary, and a majority also were interested in grant or loan programs facilitated by the City which would benefit historic property owners. Respondents were interested in programs which included: study sessions or workshops (on weekends); walking tour with markers/plaques; special speakers; inventory with photos placed online; assistance with historic research or nominations; grade school history education; and history articles in the newspaper. A majority of respondents were interested in receiving a newsletter from the Historic Commission. They were interested in the following educational topics: identifying historic home styles; green preservation; foundation repair; 10 See the Appendix # 6 for the specific questions and a more detailed summary of responses. Ashland Preservation Plan 20 appropriate siding & window replacement; Ashland history; theater history; spotlight on current restoration projects. A majority of people have had a positive experience with the City with regard to historic preservation. Ashland Preservation Plan 21 Recommended Code Revisions The City of Ashland is unique in that its Historic Commission is mandated by AMC Chapter 2.24 to review and make recommendations in connection with the issuance of building permits, zone changes, conditional use permits, variances, sign permits and site reviews within the identified local districts. This is in contrast to many other jurisdictions throughout the state who only review exterior alterations to identified historic resources and don’t do any kind of review of land use permits. It should be noted that while it was brought up by staff, the Commission and the public that sometimes there is frustration regarding the advisory role of the Historic Commission as opposed to its power to make final binding decisions, the resolution of this issue is beyond the scope of this project. It is recommended that the issue of the power and function of the Historic Commission and its duties be considered carefully by the City Council and Mayor, as it would require a change in the enabling language of the Historic Commission especially as it relates to the review of all land use decisions and the function of the Planning Commission. The fundamental nature of the Historic Commission and the scope of the projects reviewed would need to be examined within the overall context of land use review and public process as it relates to future development and preservation of historic resources within the city as a whole. The goal of this project is to evaluate Ashland’s Historic Preservation Program, including the Historic Commission’s duties within the context of the existing enabling language found in the comprehensive plan and the municipal code. Any recommendations or suggested projects within the identified program areas are meant to help improve the Historic Commission’s ability to address identified needs in areas where they have existing authority as identified through the Comprehensive Plan. Some of the suggested revisions are ‘housekeeping’ issues and others will require policy changes, which may necessitate additional consideration and discussion by the Historic Commission, the Planning Commission and City Council. Based upon the responses of the public, planning staff and the Historic Commissioners, the following changes to the City of Ashland Municipal Code are suggested. It is recommended that the timeline and priority of any code revisions be determined by City staff in cooperation with the Historic Commission, especially since the City recently implemented some significant changes to their Land Use code. Ashland Preservation Plan 22 Revision and Expansion of Design Standards for Exterior Changes in Residential Districts Need to Review Changes not Requiring a Building Permit Like staff and Historic Landmarks Commissioners in many jurisdictions, the issues of acceptable design and building materials for exterior changes to buildings in residential districts arise frequently. Typical examples of exterior changes to buildings that can impact the integrity of historic structures and the surrounding district are changes to windows, doors or siding. Causing further challenge is that these kinds of changes don’t require a building permit, but if done inappropriately, will impact a structure’s integrity. In order to preserve the integrity of historic resources, the local jurisdiction must take extra measures to educate historic property owners about proper techniques for restoring and remodeling historic structures, and ensure that review processes and criteria are in place beyond building permit review. It was identified as an important goal by both staff and the Historic Commission that exterior alterations to resources are reviewed even though they don’t require a building permit. This goal is supported by language in both the Comprehensive Plan and the Municipal Code. The Comprehensive Plan 1.30 Goal is: To preserve historically significant structures and sites in Ashland. Comprehensive Plan 1.31 Policies #7 is: The City shall develop and implement through law design guidelines for new development as well as for alteration of existing structures within the historic interest areas for structures and areas that are historically significant. Additionally, the AMC Chapter 2.24.040 Powers and Duties B:To draft and recommend ordinances and other measures designed to protect and foster interest in the improvement of designated historical properties. Further, as an active Certified Local Government, Ashland is required to have a program in place which ensures the protection of identified significant historic resources.11 The lack of review of alterations to structures that contribute to the historic districts has caused some loss of integrity within these districts, particularly in the case of siding and window replacement. 11 CLG Performance Standards A: The SHPO expects elected officials and administrators of CLGs to support historic preservation programs with adequate funding, staff, and access, and ensure that ordinances and other legislation designed to protect historic and prehistoric cultural resources are enforced (qq.v, OAR 660-023-0200) Ashland Preservation Plan 23 Need to Revise and Expand Existing Residential Standards Section IV, Historic District Development contains eleven design standards identified in Section IV B for rehabilitation and ten standards in Section IV C relating primarily to new additions and new construction. These current standards are generally most useful for the review of residential projects within the historic districts. However, it has been noted that occasionally some of these standards conflict with the standards for commercial development within Section VI, the Downtown Ashland section of the Site Design and Use Standards. For example, the standards relating to height (IV-C-1, Avoid construction that greatly varies in height from older buildings in the vicinity conflicts with VI-A-1, Building height shall vary from adjacent buildings...to maintain the traditional “staggered” streetscape appearance). To avoid this kind of conflict, the purpose of Section IV could be revised to clarify its application primarily to the three identified residential districts, or any future locally listed resources outside of the historic districts. It could be clarified here that if there is a conflict between criteria of the two sections when reviewing a proposed project in downtown, the criteria found in Section VI of the Site Design and Use Standards should be utilized first, supplemented when necessary by historic district design standards in Section IV. Further, some of the Standards in Section IV-B conflict with or contradict the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.12 This could be a potential problem for properties on the Oregon Special Assessment program. The Oregon SHPO office utilizes the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards when evaluating project proposals, and any work that does not comply with these standards may cause the property to be removed from the program. For example, Standards IV- B-1, 3, 4 and 5 encourage new additions to match existing features as much as possible. This is contradictory to Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #9 which requires: “The new work shall be differentiated from the old.” Another potential conflict exists in Standard IV-B-3 which requires that ridge lines be extended where possible. This could potentially conflict with Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #10 which requires: “New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.” Last, should Ashland decide to review exterior alterations not requiring a building permit, the Historic Commission and city staff will need to review the existing standards to ensure that clear and objective criteria exist for projects which typically haven’t been reviewed before. For example, criteria exists encouraging that new window additions duplicate existing or original windows (IV-B-2), but no specific criteria exists addressing the issue of replacement of existing windows. 12 Appendix #7 Ashland Preservation Plan 24 Possible New Language for General Standards To address these issues the existing design standards could be revised and expanded as follows:13 • Be sure the restored portion has exterior wall finish that matches the existing or original material. For additions, be sure that the new exterior material is distinguishable from the old, either by selecting a different, compatible material or by including a design feature which distinguishes it from the original. (clarification and addition to IV-B-1) • If replacement of siding, windows or distinguishing architectural features is necessary, every effort should be made to utilize in-kind materials and to replicate the detailing, style or profile of what is being replaced. If in-kind replacement is not feasible, materials compatible with the historic structure should be used. Modern materials such as vinyl are discouraged. (clarification and addition to IV-B-1 & 2) • Design the roof on additions to have the same pitch as the original roof. Avoid extending the ridge line. Any new additions should be designed so that if they are removed in the future the essential form and integrity of the original resource will not be compromised.(revision and addition to IV-B-3) • While the style of any porch or entry addition should match that of the existing style of the building, each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. It shall be clear from the use of materials or design which portion of the resource is original, and which is new. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as added conjectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. (clarification and revision of IV-B-4) • Maintenance and repair of existing distinguishing architectural features is encouraged, especially on any facades visible from the right of way. (clarification of IV-B-6) • Exterior alterations or additions, if they are necessary, should be on the rear of the building, and not exceed the height of the existing building. While additions should be compatible, it should be clearly distinguishable that they are new. (clarification and addition to IV-C-1) • Any restorations of existing historical features should be based upon historic evidence, either photographs or existing physical evidence. If historic evidence is not available, restoration based upon conjecture should not be attempted. (clarification of IV-C-10) • Provide a use compatible to the design of the historic property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure or site and its environment. (new) 13 Many revisions based upon Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Oregon SHPO’s model ordinance. Ashland Preservation Plan 25 • The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The relocation of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property shall be avoided. (new) • Correct structural deficiencies without visually changing the composition, texture or other visual qualities of the structure. Do not excavate or regrade adjacent to an historic structure in a way that could cause the foundation to shift or fail. (new) • Any required surface cleaning of buildings shall be undertaken utilizing the gentlest means possible. Harmful chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that can cause damage to original historical material, shall be avoided. Retain original masonry and mortar whenever possible without the application of any surface treatment. (new) • Archeological resources shall be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. (new) Additional Residential Standards for the Historic Districts Standards IV-B-7, 8, 9 and 10 relate to the use of specific materials and styles. Since these particular standards are so specific regarding compatible material and style, as time goes by and new properties or districts with different styles or materials are listed on the National Register or the Local Landmarks list, these Standards may not apply. Therefore, it is important to clarify that certain design standards relating to the particular materials or styles only apply to specifically identified residential districts. The existing design standards could be revised as follows: • Within the Railroad Addition, Siskiyou-Hargadine and Skidmore Districts, if a reroof is required on an existing building, in-kind replacement is preferred. If in-kind replacement is not feasible (or for new construction or additions), roofs of sawn shingle or composition are preferred. Asphalt shingles which match existing color and texture are acceptable. Shake, tile or metal roofs should be avoided. (clarification and revision of IV-B-7). • Within the Railroad Addition, Siskiyou-Hargadine and Skidmore Districts, for new additions to existing buildings, diagonal and vertical siding should be avoided.(clarification and revision of IV-B-8) • Within the Railroad Addition, Siskiyou-Hargadine and Skidmore Districts, for new additions to existing buildings, styles should match that of the existing building and styles from other eras should be avoided. (clarification of IV-B-11). In order to best accommodate the specific conditions in Ashland, it is recommended that either existing City staff or a consultant familiar with crafting residential design standards facilitate a work session with the Historic Ashland Preservation Plan 26 Commission to discuss both residential design standard revisions as well as acceptable building materials. The goal of the work session should be to determine what the Commission finds acceptable for historic residential buildings in general as well as within the three different districts. For example, do the Commissioners wish to have additional standards which discourage the use of particular materials such as vinyl or aluminum? What sorts of window replacements are acceptable? Are alternative building materials allowed on new construction, or should traditional building materials found in the district be used? How are the integration of ‘green’ building or energy conservation methods encouraged and which materials are acceptable? Possible new standards could include: • Within the Railroad Addition, Siskiyou-Hargadine and Skidmore Districts replacement of windows is discouraged in favor of restoration of historic windows. If replacement is necessary because of advanced deterioration, it should be with in-kind materials, however if this is not feasible, acceptable materials include wood, or any paintable modern material that replicates the window profile and design. If energy efficiency is a concern, high quality storm windows are encouraged, as they should thermally outperform a new double glazed metal window. • Within the Railroad Addition, Siskiyou-Hargadine and Skidmore Districts for new additions and new construction, replacement siding should be compatible with the existing resource. Paintable materials such as wood or alternative materials such as smooth-finish fiber-cement siding (such as Hardieplank) are acceptable, while vinyl should be avoided. Use of salvaged historic material is encouraged. Other acceptable ‘green’ siding options include Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified sustainably harvested wood, or natural resin-based siding made of recycled materials. • Within the Railroad Addition, Siskiyou-Hargadine and Skidmore Districts, solar panels are acceptable on roofs provided they are located on the rear of the roof, away from the front façade, with limited visibility from the right of way. Every attempt should be made to minimize damage to the existing resource when attaching the panels, and they should be removable. Once the Commission determines what it finds acceptable, the Site Design Standards, Section IV, B Historic Design Review Criteria should be revised and updated with clear and objective Design Standards for these districts. It is recommended that a list of “encouraged” and “discouraged” materials and design features with graphics similar to the ones that already exist in this Section be developed to help guide staff, the applicant and the Commission. Ashland Preservation Plan 27 Review process for exterior changes in the Residential Districts As of July, commercial buildings within the historic districts require a Type I review for any exterior alteration which requires a building permit, if they are designated contributing to one of the National Register Historic Districts.14 It is suggested that the City consider requiring a similar type of review for Single Family contributing buildings within the National Register districts. Additionally, it is recommended that a review process be established for reviewing all exterior alterations to contributing properties within the historic districts (regardless of whether a building permit is required). Since there are a significant number of contributing properties within these historic districts, it is recommended that a two-tiered review process be implemented by which staff can approve small projects administratively if they meet certain criteria, and the Historic Commission would perform discretionary review of the more complex projects as a Type I review. The Ministerial process completed by staff could be used for “over-the-counter” approvals with input from the Historic Review Board. Recommended language Ministerial Review: For projects that are limited in scope or minor alterations on the rear or interior side yard, not visible from the public right- of-way and no increase in building footprint or massing, or in-kind replacement of siding, windows or doors. Historic Design review performed by the Staff Advisor or designee shall be administrative and shall not require public hearing nor public notice. Suggested projects include: signs which are under 25 square feet in size, skylights; mechanical equipment; reroofing; ‘in-kind’ door, window, roof and siding replacement. Type I (Administrative Review): For projects that are limited in scope or minor alterations not requiring a building permit and no increase in building footprint or massing. Historic Design review performed by Historic Commission shall be administrative and shall not require public hearing. These reviews shall be considered as a Type I decision and shall require a public notice and opportunity for appeal to the Planning Commission in accordance with of the Ashland Municipal Code. Suggested projects include: replacement of roofing, siding or windows (not in-kind), outbuildings (less than 200 square feet); awnings; wheelchair ramps; reconfiguration of existing decks; reconstruction of stairs; etc. Criteria: Criteria used shall be found in the Site Design and Use Standards Section IV B: Rehabilitation & Remodel Standards: 1-11. Additional residential standards will possibly be developed. (Perhaps 14 Per 18.108.040 A. 1.c “Any exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places. Ashland Preservation Plan 28 these standards could be supplemented in the meantime by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation or the State SHPO Model Ordinance.) Review Process: The Staff Advisor shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application, based on the project’s conformity with the standards. Conditions of approval, if any, shall be limited to project modifications required to enable the project to better meet the intent of the standards. All reviews by the Staff Advisor shall be in conformance with current land use review regulations. Adjustment of National Register District Boundaries Currently, Ashland’s four National Register Districts do not match the boundaries of the local districts have been adopted with the Comprehensive Plan. This has been identified as an issue which causes confusion for City staff, Commissioners and the public. Further, there are some property owners who are subject to the regulation that exists in the AMC for historic districts, but who do not have access to potential incentives available to those located within the National Register district boundaries, such as the State Special Assessment program. It is recommended that City staff and the Historic Commission consider working with the State Historic Preservation Office to determine whether or not the existing boundaries of the four National Register Districts could easily be adjusted to match the local boundaries. Additionally, the City may want to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the maps for the four National Register Districts, so that the area designated for review within the National Register districts would be clarified. Historic Commission Liaison to the Planning Commission/Hearings Board Concern regarding the limited communication between the Historic and Planning Commissions was expressed by Commissioners. Since the Historic Commission spends a significant amount of time and energy reviewing applications that are then forwarded on for review by the Planning Commission or Hearings Board, it is suggested that a liaison from the Historic Commission be appointed to the Planning Commission or Hearings Board. There are many nuances and facets of the back and forth debate that occur between the Commissioners and the applicant that cannot necessarily be conveyed in minutes or a decision. This representative would be able to convey this information back to the larger Planning Commission or Hearings Board to help facilitate better communication between the two review bodies regarding projects that have been reviewed by the Historic Commission. Ashland Preservation Plan 29 Enabling Language for the Historic Review Board Currently, the Historic Commission’s Review Board, comprised of three members of the Historic Commission which meets weekly to review building permits for projects within the historic districts, is not formally established in the Ashland Municipal Code. Therefore their role, powers and duties are not clearly defined within the Ashland Municipal Code. It is recommended that the Historic Review Board be formally established and their role clearly defined in the Ashland Municipal Code the way that it is for the Planning Commission Hearings Board in AMC Section 2.14. It is recommended that both staff and the Historic Commission work together to determine the following: 1) Membership: Should at least one (or more) of the members of the Historic Review Board be a Preservation Professional or Certified Architect? As a Certified Local Government, Ashland is encouraged to require that a substantial effort will be made to find a number individuals that meet the Standards for a Preservation Professional for the Historic Commission.15 Should this requirement extend to the Review Board? 2) Duties: Currently the Historic Review Board meets weekly to review existing Building Permits and make recommendations to applicants. Are there additional duties this Board should have? 3) Rules of Procedure: What sort of criteria should the Review Board utilize when discussing Building Permits with applicants? Does additional language need to be developed within the Site Design Standards specifically for the Historic Review Board? Establishment of a Local Inventory A local inventory of historic resources is a compilation of those resources within a city or other locality which are locally significant.16 This differs from a national or state inventory, in that the locality has the discretion in deciding what resources are listed and what sort of responsibilities or benefits accompany a local listing. 17 Many jurisdictions establish a local inventory as a completely voluntary program whereby individual property owners of historic resources meeting basic criteria 15 An added benefit to utilizing Preservation Professionals is that their volunteer time can be counted at their Professional billing rate (as a soft match) to meet the CLG match requirements (as opposed to the normal minimum wage rate for regular volunteers. 16 The SHPO model ordinance defines a designated Landmarks Register as: The list of, and record of information about properties officially recognized by (The City of__,__County) as important in its history. 17 Currently, there are no national or state requirements associated with being designated an historic resource. For example, a resource listed on the National Register does not have any protection, except for what is required by the local jurisdiction. With the exception of those properties listed on the National Register and enrolled in the Special Assessment Program, any requirements for alteration review of NR properties are all local. Ashland Preservation Plan 30 (such as being 50 years old), are encouraged to apply for listing in exchange for the benefit of local incentive programs administered through the local jurisdiction. Other benefits to a Local Landmark Inventory would be the ability to protect those properties outside of districts that wouldn’t necessarily meet the more stringent National Register criteria for listing. Since the local jurisdiction has the ability to set its own criteria for listing, they would have the ability to designate resources they felt were worthwhile, even if they may not be nationally significant. Enabling language already exists within the Ashland comprehensive plan and municipal code. Comprehensive Plan 1.31 (6) states: The City shall identify and inventory its significant historic buildings, structures, sites, objects and districts employing photographic, written and oral documentation, and maps, and shall protect those resources identified as significant. The AMC Section 2.24.040A explains the Historic Commission’s duties: To survey and recommend to the City Council, areas or properties of significant historical value and interest to be designated historical properties; (Ord 2037 S5, 1979). As a result of this initial enabling language, the four local areas of historic interest were established, and the associated map adopted along with the Comprehensive Plan. These four areas subsequently were thoroughly surveyed and established as National Register Districts. However, individual local landmarks or historic resources have never been identified, nor has a process or criteria for review ever been established.18 As a Certified Local Government, the City of Ashland is required to designate local landmarks. 19 It is noted that these may include, but are not limited to: districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects. Per ORS 197.772 & LUBA no 2000-160 the designation of local landmarks must be based upon clear and objective criteria embodied in the local ordinance and supported by written findings of fact, as well as a provision that addresses the question of owner consent. 20 Therefore, it is recommended that the Historic Commission establish criteria and a procedure for establishing a local historic inventory. Many jurisdictions do not charge a fee for review of nominations to the local inventory. The Commission may wish to model their criteria and process after AMC 18.196.160 Section B 1-2 for the Historic Signs. Additionally, there is language in the State’s model ordinance which could be utilized. 18 There is a process and criteria for locally significant historic signs however. This Inventory was established in 1990 per Ordinance 2598, 19 CLG Performance Standard C: “The Certified Local Government designates local landmarks” 20 Additionally, any property listed on the National Register of Historic Places must be protected as local landmarks under OAR 660-023-0200. Ashland Preservation Plan 31 Additional Recommendations In addition to the above recommended changes, it is suggested that several internal improvements be made as staff time warrants. First, the existing permit tracking system should be modified to include the tracking of permits reviewed by the Historic Commission. This will be useful for support staff when they prepare the annual list of projects for the annual awards. Additionally, it is recommended that the City staff utilize the SHPO Statewide Database to access information on the four National Register Districts. The database is available online, and can also be downloaded in its entirety. Reports and searches are easy to do using this database, and it is more efficient than using the notebooks.21 Staff also indicated that there is a file cabinet containing historic information that has been collected over the years. Sorting through and organizing these records would be an excellent project for a summer intern. Second, it is recommended that the website be updated to include an expanded historic page which includes links to all the relevant code related to historic review, as well as related historic maps and other useful information and FAQ’s. There is actually quite a lot of useful information on the website, it is just located in many different areas. Third, it is recommended that a brochure describing the review process and existing design standards for historic resources in Ashland be developed. CLG funding has been awarded this fiscal year to accomplish this goal. Last, the survey results indicated that the public would like to have all of the related code language that applies to any historic review in one section within the Municipal Code.22 This an excellent idea, as it would help both City staff and applicants clearly understand the role of the Historic Commission, the Review Board, its duties and procedures as well as criteria for review. This reorganization could be done at the same time any amendments to the AMC relating to historic preservation are processed. 21 Sample statistics reports from the database for the four districts are in Appendix #8 22 Currently the duties of the Historic Commission are in Section 2.24, and the related review procedures and processes are in various parts of Section 18 Ashland Preservation Plan 32 Preservation Programs: Alternative Projects The following section contains possible alternative projects that could be pursued by the Historic Commission and the City of Ashland in order to fulfill needs identified through the survey process. In addition to the needs addressed in the previous code section, needs were identified in four program areas and include: 1) Survey and Inventory; 2) Economic Incentives; 3) Education; and 4) Commissioner Training and Networking. Input is requested from the Historic Commission in order to determine the priority of each of the possible projects. Once the Commission has indicated their preferences, an implementation and possible funding plan should be prepared. Survey and Inventory Based upon results from the survey it was clear that a majority of respondents believed that a significant number of historic resources have already been identified in the City of Ashland. However, it was also clear that there was concern that a number of individually eligible, locally significant resources have not been identified. For example, several respondents indicated that late 19th and early 20th century Ashland farms and related buildings have not been inventoried. Additionally, in the reconnaissance level survey report for the Ashland north quadrant, consultant George Kramer identified a number of resources which could either become a part of an existing district, or be collectively part of a MPS or new local or national district. An inventory of Lithia Springs/Winburn Camp was completed in 1987 where Lithia Springs was identified as eligible for the National Register. For the last few years Lithia Springs has been identified as a priority by the Historic Commission, and this year Ashland received CLG funding to develop a management plan for Lithia Springs. Additional areas identified in need of survey included Lower Helman Street (below tracks) and above Iowa Street and the surrounding area. Ashland Preservation Plan 33 Economic Incentives23 Grant/Loan Program Survey results clearly indicated strong support for some kind of grant or revolving loan program sponsored and managed by the Historic Commission. Many cities throughout the state have programs like this that the Ashland Historic Commission can look to. For example, the Forest Grove Landmarks Commission has had a grant program for many years. On average they distribute about $10,000 annually for a variety of preservation projects including maintenance, repair and restoration work. The City of Astoria has developed a façade grant program for their residential districts, which was funded last year by a Certified Local Government Grant. They awarded small grants to individuals who proposed to restore some or all of a residential building façade based upon historic evidence. The program was so successful they plan on continuing it in the future. The Ashland Historic Commission could consider different alternative economic programs, and apply for CLG funding to ‘try out’ the program that is identified as the best possible choice for Ashland. Additionally, local partners could be identified, such as local banks, that might be interested in sponsoring and administering a local revolving loan program for historic properties. Permit fee reduction Survey results indicated a desire by property owners to have reduced permit fees in exchange for compliance with Historic Commission recommendations. Some jurisdictions offer this type of incentive, including waiving permit fees altogether for initial historic designation. Preserve America Ashland could apply for Preserve America status in order to gain access to additional federal grant funds relating to historic preservation and tourism. Currently there are four cities in Oregon with this status: Astoria, Salem, Jacksonville and Enterprise. Recently for example, the City of Salem received $60,000 for historic markers and developing a walking tour brochure. Main Street Program Survey results indicated that the area most in need of protection in Ashland was its Downtown. In 2007, Governor Kulongoski included funding to re-establish this nationally known program in Oregon. The Oregon Main Street program is a statewide commercial district revitalization program administered by the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department. In partnership with the National Trust Main Street Center, this program is designed to assist communities with maintaining viable commercial districts. The underlying 23 Incentive Programs for Other Cities are in Appendix #9 Ashland Preservation Plan 34 premise of Main Street program is to encourage economic development within the context of historic preservation in ways appropriate to today’s marketplace. There are a wide range of financial assistance and incentive programs available through this program. Public Education Programs Special Assessment/Federal Tax Credits A very small number of eligible properties are taking advantage of the state Special Assessment Program and the Tax Credit Program. The Historic Commission could reach out to historic property owners and make sure they are aware of these programs. Recently the Historic Commission recommended that the City adopt the 15 year renewal available to historic residential property owners already on Special Assessment. Should this pass with City Council Approval, those property owners could be made aware of the opportunity for them to renew. Walking Tour/Brochures Survey results indicated a strong desire by residents to have the ability to go on a self guided walking tour of historic Ashland. The Imagine Project will have an audio tour ready to go next spring. The Ashland Historic Commission could work with the Imagine Project to identify any needs for associated brochures or historic markers or plaques to go along with the tour. Newsletter Survey results indicated strong interest in receiving a newsletter from the Historic Commission. There was interest in learning about topics ranging from the history of Ashland to proper techniques for building restoration and energy upgrades using ‘green’ products and methods. Many jurisdictions around the state produce quarterly newsletters from their Historic Commissions. Typically the newsletters are written by Commissioners and distributed by the City to owners within the historic districts, as well as others who express an interest in receiving the newsletter. The newsletter could also be placed on the city’s website. The Historic Commission can consider whether producing a newsletter would be something they could take on given their current workload. Perhaps CLG funding could be requested to produce one newsletter and the Commission could see if they wish to continue. Workshops/Brown Bag Lunches Survey results indicated that there is a strong desire by residents to attend informational workshops with speakers that can explain about different preservation topics. Interest in workshops on the weekends was especially Ashland Preservation Plan 35 noted, since many individuals work and aren’t able to attend during the week. The Historic Commission has noted an interest in co-sponsoring a workshop with the Conservation Commission. New Owner Handbook It was suggested by both the public and Commissioners that new owners of historic resources be presented with some kind of informational packet informing them of their responsibilities as well as any opportunities or incentives available. Additionally it was suggested that these owners be invited to speak with the Review Board. Commissioner Training and Networking Mentoring There was interest in establishing a mentoring program for new Historic Commissioners. In addition to providing new Historic Commissioners with a comprehensive manual with all of the relevant code and design standards, it would be helpful for more experienced Commissioners to take the time to explain the realities of how things work during a meeting, as well as to answer any questions a new member may have. SHPO Training There was a strong interest noted by Commissioners in additional training and networking with other like minded individuals in Oregon. In September the SHPO office will be offering a training session in eastern Oregon which is free to Commissioners and staff. SHPO occasionally offers these sessions around the state. Oregon APA Training The Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association is partnering with Portland State University to offer a monthly nine part training series for Planning Commissioners. Trainings are every second Friday from October through June and are also available live on the web. The sessions are free to view online and are archived for later viewing if you cannot be there ‘live’. Additionally you can ask questions in real time that will be answered by the presenter in the last ten minutes. While this series is geared to Planning Commissioners, since many of the reviews that Historic Commissioners participate in involve a wide variety of land use reviews, much of this training would be applicable and useful to Ashland Commissioners. Go to http://www.oregonapa.org/pageview.aspx?id=18208 to download and watch archived training sessions. National Alliance of Preservation Commissions-CAMP The NAPC offers a CAMP--Commission Assistance and Mentoring Program. They offer a day camp at a cost of $2,500 plus speaker expenses and $55 a participant which includes three nationally recognized experts and focuses on preservation commission fundamentals. A curriculum can be customized to Ashland Preservation Plan 36 include legal issues; developing design standards and guidelines, or any two topics of interest to the Commission from their ‘menu’. A second ½ day of training is available should it be needed to cover additional topics of interest. CLG funding can be utilized to pay for this type of training. Go to http://www.uga.edu/sed/pso/programs/napc/camp.htm for more information, or contact the NAPC at 706 542-4731 to have them host a camp in Ashland. Conferences The National Trust and the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions as well as the local Oregon APA offer annual conferences. The National Trust Conference this year is in Tulsa Oklahoma from October 21-25; The Oregon SHPO also offers an annual Heritage Conference which provides an opportunity for preservationists throughout the State to network. CLG funding is available for Commissioners and Staff to attend these conferences. Additionally the Oregon SHPO offers $7,500 in scholarships every year which pay all expenses for a volunteer preservationist to attend a historic preservation related conference. It is known as the Elisabeth Potter Advocacy and Education Award. Applications are typically accepted through May of each year. For more information contact: David Bogan at 503 986-0671 or David.Bogan@state.or.us. Ashland Preservation Plan 37 Preferred Program Priorities and Projects At a work session on August 21, 2008, the Historic Commission discussed the five program areas and identified their priorities for specific projects. All projects are listed below in priority order as identified by Commissioners. New items or changes are noted in italics. Improve and Clarify Code I. Establishment of More Detailed Rehabilitation and Remodel Standards for Residential Districts. Historic Commissioners are interested in additional decision making authority and discretionary powers especially relating to the review of alterations/additions of identified historic resources. II. Establish Process, Criteria for Local Inventory III. Historic Commission Liaison to Planning Commission IV. Enabling Language for Historic Review Board V. Adjustment of NR Boundary to Match Local(remove from priority list) Survey & Inventory Program I. Ashland North (pursue National Register listing for identified areas noted as eligible in RLS survey) II. Local Landmarks (pursue local listing of Lithia Springs) III. Identify areas to expand existing National Register Districts IV. Lithia Springs (National Register nomination) Economic Incentives Program I. Grant/Loan Program II. Preserve America Program III. Permit fee reduction IV. Main Street Program Public Education Program I. New Homeowner Handbook (include information about Special Assessment and Fed Tax Credits) II. Walking Tour Brochure/Markers III. Workshops/Brown Bag lunches IV. Newsletter Ashland Preservation Plan 38 Commissioner Training/Networking I. Mentoring (Commissioners mentoring newly appointed Commissioners) II. Improved Recruitment Process: Add additional language to code encouraging the City to seek out individuals who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Standards. Additionally, new appointees should be required to attend at least one meeting prior to sitting on the Commission. III. Training a. NAPC-Camp b. SHPO Training c. Oregon APA Training IV. Networking a. Oregon Heritage Conference b. National Trust Conference Ashland Preservation Plan 39 Implementation Plan Based upon the preferences of the Historic Commission as well as input from staff and the community, a ten year implementation plan has been developed. The timeline for implementation of each individual project has been determined by the priority it was given by the Historic Commission as well as the ability of staff to complete the projects. All Priority 1 projects have been targeted for completion within the first five years, and all code related projects have been grouped together and targeted for completion by 2012. Priority 1 projects include: establishment of more detailed Standards for residential districts; pursuing National Register listing for eligible areas identified in the Ashland North RLS survey; Establishing a local grant/loan program; Developing a new homeowner handbook and establishing a mentoring program for new Historic Commissioners. Priority 2 projects include: Developing criteria for landmark listing and establishing a local landmark list; establishing Ashland as a Preserve America Community; and developing a walking tour brochure/markers program. Priority 3 projects include: appointing a Historic Commission liaison to the Planning Commission; identifying areas to expand National Register Districts; Establishing workshops/brown bag lunches; and providing Historic Commission training. Priority 4 projects include: drafting enabling language for the Historic Review Board; nominating Lithia Springs to the National Register; establishing a Main Street Program; developing a newsletter and taking advantage of local and national networking opportunities. Even though both Commissioner training and networking projects are identified as Priority 3 and 4 projects, they have been scheduled for implementation in 2009 and are reflected as ongoing projects throughout the ten year period. For example, Commissioners and staff could determine that a NAPC Camp to help initiate the discussion of the Residential Standards would be most appropriate in 2009. Training and networking can be an ongoing pursuit for Commissioners, since many opportunities for both training and networking are free or have scholarships available. It should also be noted that once the workshops and the newsletter programs have been established, they have been identified as ongoing projects. However, it should be determined by both Commissioners and staff how often the workshops or newsletter should be offered, as they are highly dependent upon volunteer efforts. The following section includes a table which provides an overview of the timeline as well as a more specific detailed explanation of the implementation plan. Each Goal has at least one specific Action associated with it, and each Action includes a recommended lead role, who the potential partners are, a timeline and potential funding sources. While the primary funding sources for preservation projects currently are from the City of Ashland and CLG grants, additional funding has been identified from other potential sources. Ashland Preservation Plan 40 Goal 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 1. Improve and Clarify Development Code 1.1 Establishment of more detailed Standards x x 1.2 Local Inventory x x x 1.3 Liaison to the Planning Commission x x 1.4 Historic Review Board Language x x 2. Complete Survey & Inventory 2.1 Ashland North x x 2.2 Local Landmarks 2.3 Expand NR Districts 2.4 Lithia Springs NR Nomination 3. Develop Economic Incentives 3.1 Local Grant/Loan Program x x 3.2 Preserve America 3.3 Permit Fee Reduction x x 3.4 Main Street Program 4. Improve Public Education Program 4.1 New Homeowner Handbook x x 4.2 Walking Tour Brochure/Markers 4.3 Workshops/Brown Bag Lunches 4.4 Newsletter 5. Improve Commissioner Training/Networking 5.1 Commissioner Mentoring x x 5.2 Commissioner Recruitment x x 5.3 Commissioner Training x x x x x 5.4 Commissioner Networking x x x x x Ashland Preservation Plan 41 Goal 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 1. Improve and Clarify Development Code 1.1 Establishment of more detailed Standards 1.2 Local Inventory 1.3 Liaison to the Planning Commission 1.4 Historic Review Board Language 2. Complete Survey & Inventory 2.1 Ashland North 2.2 Local Landmarks x x 2.3 Expand NR Districts x x 2.4 Lithia Springs NR Nomination x x 3. Develop Economic Incentives 3.1 Local Grant/Loan Program 3.2 Preserve America x x 3.3 Permit Fee Reduction 3.4 Main Street Program x x 4. Improve Public Education Program 4.1 New Homeowner Handbook 4.2 Walking Tour Brochure/Markers x x 4.3 Workshops/Brown Bag Lunches x x x x 4.4 Newsletter x x x 5. Improve Commissioner Training/Networking 5.1 Commissioner Mentoring 5.2 Commissioner Recruitment 5.3 Commissioner Training x x x x x 5.4 Commissioner Networking x x x x x Ashland Preservation Plan 42 Goal 1: Improve and Clarify the Development Code Action 1.1 Establishment of More Detailed Rehabilitation and Remodel Standards for Residential Districts. Description Review of the Rehabilitation and Remodel Standards by the Historic Commission and staff and evaluated against other standards within the code as well as the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Additionally, Historic Commissioners are interested in more decision making authority and discretionary powers especially relating to the review of alterations/additions to identified historic resources. • Lead Role: Planning Department Staff; Historic Commission • Potential Partners: Planning Commission; City Council; Homeowners • Timeline: 2009-201010 • Potential Funding: CLG grant; City of Ashland Action 1.2 Establish Process, Criteria for Local Inventory Description Establish a process for nominating resources to the City of Ashland’s Local Inventory of Cultural Resources by the Historic Commission and staff. Identification of criteria by the Historic Commission which qualify a local resource as significant. • Lead Role: Historic Commission; Planning Department Staff • Potential Partners: Heritage Commission • Timeline: 2010-2012 • Potential Funding: City of Ashland; CLG grant Action 1.3 Historic Commission Liaison to Planning Commission Description Amend the code to provide for a liaison from the Historic Commission to the Planning Commission and/or the Hearings Board in order to improve communication between the two bodies on matters relating to review of projects which impact identified historic resources. • Lead Role: Planning Department Staff • Potential Partners: Planning Commission • Timeline: 2011-2012 Ashland Preservation Plan 43 • Potential Funding: City of Ashland Action 1.4 Enabling Language for Historic Review Board Description Amend the code to provide language officially establishing the Historic Review Board, outlining specific guidelines relating to membership, meetings, rules of procedure and criteria for review. • Lead Role: Planning Department Staff • Potential Partners: Historic Commission • Timeline: 2011-2012 Goal 2: Complete Survey and Inventory Action 2.1 Ashland North Description Pursue National Register District listing for identified areas noted as eligible in RLS survey completed in 2006. • Lead Role: Historic Preservation Consultant, Planning Department Staff • Potential Partners: Historic Commission; Oregon SHPO, SACHP • Timeline: 2011-2012 • Potential Funding: CLG grant; City of Ashland Action 2.2 Local Landmarks Description Develop an inventory of locally significant historic resources for Ashland. Pursue local listing of Lithia Springs. • Lead Role: Historic Preservation Consultant; Planning Department Staff • Potential Partners: Historic Commission; Heritage Commission • Timeline: 2014-2015 • Potential Funding: CLG grant; City of Ashland Ashland Preservation Plan 44 Action 2.3 Identify areas to expand existing National Register Districts Description Survey areas which directly abut existing National Register districts to determine the feasibility of expanding the existing districts, or the merit of establishing additional new National Register Districts. • Lead Role: Historic Preservation Consultant; Planning Department Staff • Potential Partners: Historic Commission; Oregon SHPO; SACHP • Timeline: 2016-2017 • Potential Funding: CLG grant; City of Ashland Action 2.4 Lithia Springs National Register nomination Description Develop a National Register nomination for Lithia Springs. • Lead Role: Historic Preservation Consultant; Planning Department Staff • Potential Partners: Historic Commission; Oregon SHPO; SACHP • Timeline: 2017-2018 • Potential Funding: CLG grant; City of Ashland Goal 3: Provide Economic Incentives to Historic Property Owners Action 3.1 Grant/Loan Program Description Establish a locally based grant or loan program for owners of historic properties in Ashland. Funds could be utilized for things like maintenance or restoration work. • Lead Role: Historic Commission; Planning Department Staff • Potential Partners: Local Banks • Timeline: 2012-2013 • Potential Funding: CLG grant; City of Ashland; Private Banks; CDBG funds Action 3.2 Preserve America Program Ashland Preservation Plan 45 Description Apply to become a Preserve America Community so that Ashland can be eligible for Preserve America grant funds, which are aimed at helping communities utilize their historic resources to encourage tourism. • Lead Role: Historic Commission; Planning Department staff • Potential Partners: City Council; Chamber of Commerce • Timeline: 2014-2015 • Potential Funding: Volunteer; City of Ashland Action 3.3 Permit fee reduction Description Reduce certain land use fees relating to historic preservation to encourage compliance with historic preservation related codes. • Lead Role: Planning Department staff • Potential Partners: Historic Commission; City Council • Timeline: 2011-2012 (implemented with associated code revisions) • Potential Funding: City of Ashland Action 3.4 Main Street Program Description Establish a Main Street Program in Ashland in order to gain access to funding and programs to help encourage preservation minded economic development in downtown Ashland. • Lead Role: Planning Department staff; Downtown Business Association • Potential Partners: Chamber of Commerce; Downtown Business Association; Historic Commission • Timeline: 2017-2018 • Potential Funding: City of Ashland Ashland Preservation Plan 46 Goal 4: Improve Public Education Program Action 4.1 New Homeowner Handbook Description Develop a handbook for new owners of historic resources in Ashland which outlines the benefits and responsibilities of owning an historic resource. The handbook would include information about benefits like the Special Assessment program and the Federal Tax Credit program. • Lead Role: Historic Commission; Planning Department staff • Potential Partners: Existing owners of historic resources; developers • Timeline: 2012-2013 • Potential Funding: Volunteer; CLG grant; City of Ashland Action 4.2 Walking Tour Brochures/Markers Description Develop a brochure including a map and a description of notable historic resources in Ashland. Working with the owners of the historic properties to install historic markers which are coordinated with the brochure. • Lead Role: Historic Commission; Planning Department staff • Potential Partners: Chamber of Commerce; Imagine Project; Historic property owners • Timeline: 2015-2016 • Potential Funding: Preserve America; City of Ashland Action 4.3 Workshops/Brown Bag lunches Description Offer a regular series of workshops or brown bag lunches, available to the public on topics of interest relating to historic preservation. • Lead Role: Historic Commission • Potential Partners: Conservation Division, Southern Oregon University; Heritage Commission • Timeline: 2015-2016 • Potential Funding: Volunteer; CLG grant; City of Ashland Ashland Preservation Plan 47 Action 4.4 Newsletter Description Develop a regularly offered newsletter with articles geared toward owners of historic resources in Ashland as well as those interested in Ashland history. • Lead Role: Historic Commission • Potential Partners: Planning Department staff; Heritage Commission • Timeline: 2016-2017 • Potential Funding: Volunteer; CLG grant Goal 5: Improve Commissioner Training/Networking Action 5.1 Commissioner Mentoring Description Establish a mentoring program for new Historic Commissioners, where each new member is assigned a mentor from the existing Historic Commission, to help them learn how things work on the Commission and to provide assistance whenever needed. • Lead Role: Historic Commission • Potential Partners: Planning Department staff • Timeline: 2009-2010 • Potential Funding: Volunteer Action 5.2 Improvements to the Commissioner Recruitment Process Description Add language to the code encouraging the City of seek out individuals who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. Add requirement for new appointees to attend a Historic Commission meeting prior to sitting on the Commission. • Lead Role: Planning Department staff, City of Ashland • Potential Partners: Historic Commission • Timeline: 2011-2012 (implemented with associated code improvements) • Potential Funding: City of Ashland Action 5.3 Ashland Preservation Plan 48 Commissioner Training Description Pursue training opportunities both statewide and nationally for Historic Commissioners. Possible training programs include those offered by the Oregon SHPO; the National Alliance for Preservation Commissions (NAPC) and the Oregon chapter of the American Planning Association or the Oregon Planning Institute. • Lead Role: Planning Department staff, Historic Commission • Potential Partners: Oregon SHPO; Oregon APA; NAPC • Timeline: 2009-2018-ongoing • Potential Funding: CLG grant; City of Ashland; Volunteer Action 5.4 Commissioner Networking Description Pursue networking opportunities both statewide and nationally, so that Historic Commissioners can learn from others in similar communities. Possible networking opportunities include the statewide Heritage Conference, the National Trust Conference, or the annual conference for the NAPC. • Lead Role: Historic Commission; Planning Department staff • Potential Partners: Oregon SHPO; National Trust for Historic Preservation • Timeline: 2009-2018- ongoing • Potential Funding: Elizabeth Walton Potter grant; CLG grant; City of Ashland; Volunteer Appendices #1: Comprehensive Plan Policies #2 Ashland Municipal Code 2.24, 18.72, 18.96 Site Design Standards Chapters IV, VI #3 Type and Number of Reviews- 2006-2008 Historic Commission #4 Comprehensive Plan Map I-1 #5 Summary of Questionnaires Staff/Historic Commissioners #6 Online Survey Results #7 SHPO CLG Model Ordinance;CLG Performance Standards #8 Statistics Report- SHPO Access Database, Ashland Districts #9 Incentive Programs for other Oregon Cities Appendix #1: Comprehensive Plan Policies Section 1.31 POLICIES 1) The City recognizes that the preservation of historic sites and 0uildings provides both tangible evidence of our heritage and economic advantages. 2) The Historic Commission shall offer recommendations to the City Council and Planning Commission concerning the alteration or disposition of structures, sites, or neighborhoods within the historic interest areas in Ashland. 3) The Historic Commission shall review all building, sign, demolition, or moving permits occurring in the areas of historic interest, using procedures established by law, in order to offer its opinion on the proposal's impact on historic preservation. 4) The Historic Commission shall encourage and promote educational programs to inform the public of the values of historic preservation. 5) The Historic Commission shall seek the official designation of important historic buildings and districts by national, state and local organizations. The Commission shall assist the Planning Staff and Planning Commission in exercising appropriate controls on the external appearance and disposition of such buildings and districts. 6) The City shall identify and inventory its significant historic buildings, structures, sites, objects and districts employing photographic, written and oral documentation, and maps, and shall protect those resources identified as significant. 7) The City shall develop and implement through law design guidelines for new development as well as for alteration of existing structures within the historic interest areas for structures and areas that are historically significant. 8) The Historic Commission shall take appropriate measures to encourage City communication with local, state and federal agencies, which can supply funding, information and political support for Ashland's historic preservation activities. 9) The City shall develop and maintain guidelines for analyzing and resolving conflicting uses of its historic resources, and shall encourage traditional uses of historic resources. Appendix #2A: Chapter 2.24 HISTORIC COMMISSION Sections: 2.24.010 HISTORIC COMMISSION - Established--Membership. 2.24.020 HISTORIC COMMISSION - Term--Vacancies. 2.24.030 HISTORIC COMMISSION - Quorum--Rules and regulations. 2.24.040 HISTORIC COMMISSION - Powers and duties--generally. 2.24.050 HISTORIC COMMISSION - Reports. 2.24.060 HISTORIC COMMISSION - Compensation. Section 2.24.010 HISTORIC COMMISSION - Established--Membership. There is established a Historic Commission which will consist of nine (9) voting members, and certain non-voting ex officio members including the Chairperson of the Planning Commission, a representative from the Ashland City Council, and a representative of the Ashland Building Division. Section 2.24.020 HISTORIC COMMISSION - Term--Vacancies. The members shall be appointed by the Mayor, with confirmation by the City Council, for three (3) year terms. Initially, three (3) members shall be appointed to terms expiring on December 31, 1975, three (3) for terms expiring December 31, 1976, and three (3) for terms expiring December 31, 1977. (Ord. 2423A changed expiration dates to April 30th of the next year beginning for terms ending in 1989) Their successors shall be appointed to three (3) year terms. Any Commissioner who is absent from four (4) or more meetings in a one-year period without being excused, shall be considered no longer active and the position vacant, and a new Commissioner shall be appointed to fill the vacancy. (Ord. 2423(A) S4, 1989; Ord. 2534, 1989) Section 2.24.030 HISTORIC COMMISSION - Quorum--Rules and regulations. Five (5) voting members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. At its first meeting of the year the Commission shall elect a Chair, Vice-Chair and Secretary, who shall hold office at the pleasure of the Commission. The Commission may make rules and regulations for its government and procedure, consistent with the laws of the State and City Charter and Ordinances and shall meet at least once a month on the first Wednesday at 7:30 P.M. in the Ashland Community Center, Ashland Oregon. (Ord. 1842, 1975; Ord. 2037, S1, 1979; Ord. 2470, 1988) Section 2.24.040 HISTORIC COMMISSION - Powers and duties--generally. The powers, duties, and responsibilities of the Historic Commission shall be as follows: A. To survey and recommend to the City Council, areas or properties of significant historical value and interest to be designated historical properties; (Ord. 2037 S5, 1979) B. To draft and recommend ordinances and other measures designed to protect and foster interest in the improvement of designated historical properties; C. To review literature and sources of funding concerning the protection and improvement of designated historic properties; D. To review and make recommendations concerning the improvement of designated historic properties in connection with the issuance of building permits, zone changes, conditional use permits, variances, sign permits, and site reviews; (Ord. 2037 S2, 1979) E. To review and recommend project applications for funding; F. To promote public support in the preservation of Ashland's historic past; G. Advise citizens on aesthetic standards for historic areas. Section 2.24.050 HISTORIC COMMISSION - Reports. The Commission shall submit copies of its minutes to the City Council and Planning Commission and shall prepare and submit such reports as from time to time may be requested of them by the Mayor and City Council and the Planning Commission. Section 2.24.060 HISTORIC COMMISSION - Compensation. Voting members of the Commission shall receive no compensation for services rendered. The Commission may receive gifts, bequests or devises of property to carry out any of the purposes of this Chapter, which shall be placed in a special fund for use of said Commission. (Ord. 1842, 1975) Appendix #2B: CHAPTER 18.72 SITE DESIGN REVIEW SECTIONS: 18.72.010 Purpose and Intent. 18.72.020 Definitions. 18.72.030 Applicability. 18.72.040 Approval Process. 18.72.050 Detail Site Review Zone. 18.72.055 Downtown Design Standards Zone. 18.72.060 Plans Required. 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval. 18.72.080 Site Design Standards. 18.72.090 Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use Standards. 18.72.100 Power to Amend Plans. 18.72.105 Expiration of Site Design Review Approval. 18.72.110 Landscaping Standards. 18.72.115 Recycling Requirements. 18.72.120 Controlled Access. 18.72.140 Light and Glare Performance Standards. 18.72.150 Review by Conservation Coordinator. 18.72.160 Landscaping Maintenance. 18.72.170 Development Standards for Disc Antennas. 18.72.180 Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities SECTION 18.72.010 Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to regulate the manner in which land in the City is used and developed, to reduce adverse effects on surrounding property owners and the general public, to create a business environment that is safe and comfortable, to further energy conservation efforts within the City, to enhance the environment for walking, cycling, and mass transit use, and ensure that high quality development is maintained throughout the City. SECTION 18.72.020 Definitions. The following terms are hereby defined as they apply to this chapter: A. Accessory Equipment - All appurtenances defined in wireless communication facilities, with the exception of the support structure and antennas. B. Antenna - The device used to capture an incoming or to transmit an outgoing radio-frequency signal from wireless communication systems. Antennas include the following types: 1. Omni-direction (whip) antenna - receives and transmits signals in a 360 degree pattern 2. Directional or Parabolic (panel or disk) Antenna - receives and transmits signals in a directional pattern. They are typically rectangular in shape. 3. Microwave antennas - receives and transmits to link two telecommunication facilities together by line of sight. They are typically circular or parabolic in shape and can be a grid or solid material. C. Collocation - The use of a single wireless communication facility by more than one wireless communications provider. D. Floor-Area Ratio (FAR) - The gross floor area of all buildings on a lot divided by the lot area. E. Infill - The development of more intensive land uses upon vacant or under-utilized sites. F. Pre-existing structures - Structures in existence prior to an application for a wireless communication facility installation. G. Primary Orientation - Direction of the front of the building with the main entrance to the public. H. Wireless Communication Facilities - The site, structures, equipment and appurtenances used to transmit, receive, distribute, provide or offer wireless telecommunications services. This includes, but is not limited to antennas, poles, towers, cables, wires, conduits, ducts, pedestals, vaults, buildings, electronics and switching equipment. I. Wireless Communications Systems - The sending and receiving of radio frequency transmissions and the connection or relaying of these signals to land lines and other sending and receiving stations, and including, but not limited to cellular radiotelephone, personal communications services (PCS), enhanced/specialized mobile radio, and commercial paging services, and any other technology which provides similar services. J. Wireless Communications Support Structure - A structure used to support wireless communications antennas and connecting appurtenances. The purpose of such structures is to elevate an antenna above the surrounding terrain or structures and may be attached to an existing building or other permanent structures or as a free-standing structure which may include, but are not limited to monopole support structures and lattice support structures, and may have supporting guyed wires and ground anchors. 1. Monopole - A support structure which consists of a single pole sunk into the ground or attached to a foundation. 2. Lattice Tower - A support structure which consists of a network of cross braces that forms a tower. These types of structures are primarily used for taller towers and require a larger base than that of a monopole. 3. Alternative Structure - Man-made structures that, by design, camouflage or conceal the presence of wireless communication facilities, such as clock towers, bell towers, church steeples, water towers, light poles and similar alternative-design mounting structures. (ORD 2802, S1 1997) SECTION 18.72.030 Applicability. Site design standards shall apply to all zones of the city as outlined below. A. Applicability. The following development is subject to Site Design Review: 1. Commercial, Industrial, Non-Residential and Mixed uses: a. All new structures, additions or expansions in C-1, E-1, HC and M zones. b. All new non-residential structures or additions (e.g. public buildings, schools, churches, etc.). c. Expansion of impervious surface area in excess of 10% of the area of the site or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. d. Expansion of parking lots, relocation of parking spaces on a site, or other changes which affect circulation. e. Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive occupancy, as defined in the City building code, or any change in use which requires a greater number of parking spaces. f. Any change in use of a lot from one general use category to another general use category, e.g., from residential to commercial, as defined by the zoning regulations of this Code. g. Any exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places. h. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030(B). 2. Residential uses: a. Two or more residential units on a single lot. b. Construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes, condominiums, row houses, etc.) in all zoning districts. c. Residential development when off-street parking or landscaping, in conjunction with an approved Performance Standards Subdivision required by ordinance and not located within the boundaries of the individual unit parcel (e.g. shared parking). d Any exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit and is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. e. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030(B). B. Exemptions. The following development is exempt from Site Design Review application and procedure requirements provided that the development complies with applicable standards as set forth by this Chapter. 1. Detached single family dwellings and associated accessory structures and uses. 2. Land divisions regulated by the following chapters: Partitioning (18.76), Subdivisions (18.80), Manufactured Housing (18.84) and Performance Standards (18.88). 3. The following mechanical equipment: a. Private, non-commercial radio and television antennas not exceeding a height of seventy (70) feet above grade or thirty (30) feet above an existing structure, whichever height is greater and provided no part of such antenna shall be within the yards required by this Title. A building permit shall be required for any antenna mast, or tower over fifty (50) feet above grade or thirty (30) feet above an existing structure when the same is constructed on the roof of the structure. b. Not more than three (3) parabolic disc antennas, each under one (1) meter in diameter, on any one lot or dwelling unit. c. Roof-mounted solar collection devices in all zoning districts, with the exception of Employment and Commercial zoned properties located within designated historic districts. The devices shall comply with solar setback standards described in 18.70 and height requirements of the respective zoning district. d. Installation of mechanical equipment not exempted by (a, b, c) above or (e) below, and which is not visible from a public right-of-way or adjacent residentially zoned property and consistent with other provisions of this Title, including solar access, noise, and setback requirements of Section 18.68.140(c). e. Routine maintenance and replacement of existing mechanical equipment in all zones. (ORD 2951, amended, 07/01/2008) SECTION 18.72.040 Approval Process. Development subject to site design review shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.108. (ORD 2951, amended, 07/01/2008) SECTION 18.72.050 Detail Site Review Zone. A. The Detail Site Review Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Standards adopted pursuant to Section 18.72.080. B. Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone as defined in the Site Review Standards adopted pursuant to this chapter, which exceeds 10,000 square feet or is longer than 100 feet in length or width, shall be reviewed according to the Type 2 procedure. C. Outside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall conform to the following standards: 1. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be considered as one building. 2. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured outside the exterior walls and including all interior courtyards. For the purpose of this section an interior courtyard means a space bounded on three or more sides by walls but not a roof. 3. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior floor space, roof top parking, and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exception: Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. 4. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. ft. or a gross floor area of 45,000 sq. ft., including roof top parking, with the following exception: Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. (ORD 2951, amended, 07/01/2008; Ord 2900, Amended, 09/16/2003) SECTION 18.72.055 Downtown Design Standards Zone. A. The Downtown Design Standards Zone is that area defined in the Site Design and Use Standards Section VI, adopted pursuant to Section 18.72.080. B. Development in the Downtown Design Standards Zone shall be subject to the Downtown Design Standards.” (Ord. 2825 S2, 1998) SECTION 18.72.060 Plans Required. The following submittals shall be required in order to determine the project's compliance with this Chapter: A site plan containing the following: A. Project name. B. Vicinity map. C. Scale (the scale shall be at least one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet or larger.) The Staff Advisor may authorize different scales and plan sheet sizes for projects, provided the plans provide sufficient information to clearly identify and evaluate the application request. D. North arrow. E. Date. F. Street names and locations of all existing and proposed streets within or on the boundary of the proposed development. G. Lot layout with dimensions for all lot lines. H. Zoning designations of the proposed development. I. Zoning designations adjacent to the proposed development. J. Location and use of all proposed and existing buildings, fences and structures within the proposed development. Indicate which buildings are to remain and which are to be removed. K. Location and size of all public utilities in and adjacent to the proposed development with the locations shown of: 1. Water lines and meter sizes. 2. Sewers, manholes and cleanouts. 3. Storm drainage and catch basins. 4. Opportunity-to-recycle site and solid waste receptacle, including proposed screening. L. The proposed location of: 1. Connection to the City water system. 2. Connection to the City sewer system. 3. Connection to the City electric utility system. 4. The proposed method of drainage of the site. M. Location of drainage ways or public utility easements in and adjacent to the proposed development. N. Location, size and use of all contemplated and existing public areas within the proposed development. O. All fire hydrants proposed to be located near the site and all fire hydrants proposed to be located within the site. P. A topographic map of the site at a contour interval of at least five (5) feet. Q. Location of all parking areas and all parking spaces, ingress and egress on the site, and on-site circulation. R. Use designations for all areas not covered by building. S. Locations of all existing natural features including, but not limited to, any existing trees of a caliber greater than six inches diameter at breast height, except in forested areas, and any natural drainage ways or creeks existing on the site, and any outcroppings of rocks, boulders, etc. Indicate any contemplated modifications to a natural feature. T. A landscape plan showing the location, type and variety, size and any other pertinent features of the proposed landscaping and plantings. At time of installation, such plans shall include a layout of irrigation facilities and ensure the plantings will continue to grow. U. The elevations and locations of all proposed signs for the development. V. For non-residential developments proposed on properties located in a Historic District, an exterior wall section, window section and drawings of architectural details (e.g. column width, cornice and base detail, relief and projection, etc.) drawn to a scale of three-fourths (3/4) of an inch equals one (1) foot or larger. W. Exterior elevations of all buildings to be proposed on the site. Such plans shall indicate the material, color, texture, shape and other design features of the building, including all mechanical devices. Elevations shall be submitted drawn to scale of one inch equals ten feet or greater. X A written summary showing the following: 1. For commercial and industrial developments: a. The square footage contained in the area proposed to be developed. b. The percentage of the lot covered by structures. c. The percentage of the lot covered by other impervious surfaces. d. The total number of parking spaces. e. The total square footage of all landscaped areas. 2. For residential developments: a. The total square footage in the development. b. The number of dwelling units in the development (include the units by the number of bedrooms in each unit, e.g., ten one-bedroom, 25 two-bedroom, etc). c. Percentage of lot coverage by: i. Structures. ii. Streets and roads. iii. Recreation areas. iv. Landscaping. v. Parking areas. 3. For all developments, the following shall also be required: The method and type of energy proposed to be used for heating, cooling and lighting of the building, and the approximate annual amount of energy used per each source and the methods used to make the approximation. (ORD 2951, amended, 07/01/2008) SECTION 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval. The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999) SECTION 18.72.080 Site Design Standards. A. The Council may adopt standards by ordinance for site design and use. These standards may contain: 1. Additional approval criteria for developments affected by this Chapter. 2. Information and recommendations regarding project and unit design and layout, landscaping, energy use and conservation, and other considerations regarding the site design. 3. Interpretations of the intent and purpose of this Chapter applied to specific examples. 4. Other information or educational materials the Council deems advisable. B. Before the Council may adopt or amend the guidelines, a public hearing must be held by the Planning Commission and a recommendation and summary of the hearing forwarded to the Council for its consideration. C. The Site Design and Use Standards adopted by Ordinance No’ s. 2690, 2800, 2825 and 2900, shall be applied as follows: 1. The Multi-family Residential Development Standards in Section II.B. shall be applied to the construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes, condominiums, row houses, etc.). 2. The Commercial, Employment, and Industrial Development standards in Section II.C. shall be applied to non-residential development (e.g. public buildings, schools, etc.) (ORD 2951, amended, 07/01/2008) SECTION 18.72.090 Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use Standards. An administrative variance to the requirements of this chapter may be granted with respect to the requirements of the Site Design Standards adopted under section 18.72.080 if, on the basis of the application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the following circumstances are found to exist: A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of a site; B. Approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; C. Approval of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Chapter; and D. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty. SECTION 18.72.100 Power to Amend Plans. When approving an application the Planning Commission or the Staff Advisor may include any or all of the following conditions if they find it necessary to meet the intent and purpose and the criteria for approval: A. Require the value of the landscaping to be above two percent, but not greater than five percent of the total project costs as determined from the building permit valuation. B. Require such modifications in the landscaping plan as will ensure proper screening and aesthetic appearance. C. Require plantings and ground cover to be predominant, not accessory, to other inorganic or dead organic ground cover. D. Require the retention of existing trees, rocks, water ponds or courses and other natural features. E. Require the retention and restoration of existing historically significant structures on the project site. F. Require the City Engineer's approval of a grading plan or drainage plan for a collection and transmission of drainage. G. Require the modification or revision of the design or remodeling of structures, signs, accessory buildings, etc., to be consistent with the Site Design Standards. H. Require the modification of the placement of any new structures, new accessory uses, parking and landscaping on the project site to buffer adjacent uses from the possible detrimental effects of the propose development. I. Restrict heights of new buildings or additions over 35 feet and increase setbacks up to 20 feet. J. Require on-site fire hydrants with protective barricades. K. Require the type and placement or shielding of lights for outdoor circulation and parking. L. Require new developments to provide limited controlled access onto a major street by means of traffic signals, traffic controls and turning islands, landscaping, or any other means necessary to insure the viability, safety and integrity of the major street as a through corridor. M. Require pedestrian access, separate pedestrian paths, sidewalks and protection from weather in new developments. N. Require developments to provide access to improved City streets and, where possible, provide access to the lower order street rather than a major collector or arterial street. (Ord. 2425 S2, 1987) SECTION 18.72.105 Expiration of Site Design Review Approval. Site design review approval granted under this Chapter shall expire if no building permit or public improvement plan for the project has been approved by the City within twelve (12) months of site design review approval. (ORD 2951, added, 07/01/2008) SECTION 18.72.110 Landscaping Standards. A. Area Required. The following areas shall be required to be landscaped in the following zones: R-1 - 45% of total developed lot area R-2 - 35% of total developed lot area R-3 - 25% of total developed lot area C-1 - 15% of total developed lot area C-1-D - None, except parking areas and service stations shall meet the landscaping and screening standards in Section II.D. of the Site Design and Use Standards. E-1 - 15% of total developed lot area M-1 - 10% of total developed lot area (Ord. 2825 S3, 1998) B. Location. Landscaping shall be located so that it is visible from public right-of-way or provide buffering from adjacent uses. Landscaping shall be distributed in those areas where it provides for visual and acoustical buffering, open space uses, shading and wind buffering, and aesthetic qualities. C. Irrigation. All landscaping plans shall either be irrigated or shall be certified that they can be maintained and survive without artificial irrigation. If the plantings fail to survive, the property owner shall replace them. D. Parking Lots. Seven percent of all the parking lot area shall be landscaped. Such landscaping shall consist of the proper mixture of deciduous trees and shrubs so that all of the landscaped areas shall be covered within five years by a spreading evergreen ground cover or by shrubs and shaded by the trees. E. One street tree per 30 feet of frontage shall be required on all projects. SECTION 18.72.115 - Recycling Requirements. All commercial and multi-family developments, requiring a site review as indicated in 18.72.040, shall provide an opportunity-to-recycle site for use of the project occupants. A. Commercial. Commercial developments having a solid waste receptacle shall provide a site of equal or greater size adjacent to or with access comparable to the solid waste receptacle to accommodate materials collected by the local solid waste franchisee under its on-route collection program for purposes of recycling. Both the opportunity-to-recycle site and the common solid waste receptacle shall be screened by fencing or landscaping such as to limit the view from adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. B. Multi-Family Residential. All newly constructed multi-family units, either as part of an existing development or as a new development, shall provide an opportunity-to-recycle site in accord with the following standards: 1. Multi-family developments NOT sharing a common solid waste receptacle shall provide an individual curbside recycling container for each dwelling unit in the development. 2. Multi-family developments sharing a common solid waste receptacle shall provide a site of equal or greater size adjacent to or with access comparable to the common solid waste receptacle to accommodate materials collected by the local solid waste franchisee under its residential on- route collection program for purposes of recycling. Both the opportunity-to-recycle site and the common solid waste receptacle shall be screened by fencing or landscaping such as to limit the view from adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. SECTION 18.72.120 Controlled access. A. Any partitioning or subdivision of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1 or M-1 zone shall meet the controlled access standards set forth in section (B) below. If applicable, cross access easements shall be required so that access to all properties created by the land division can be made from one or more points. B. Street and driveway access points in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1 or M-1 zone shall be limited to the following: 1. Distance between driveways. On arterial streets - 100 feet; on collector streets - 75 feet; on residential streets - 50 feet. 2. Distance from intersections. On arterial streets - 100 feet; on collector streets - 50 feet; on residential streets - 35 feet. C. Access Requirements for Multi-family Developments. 1. All multi-family developments which will have automobile trip generation in excess of 250 vehicle trips per day shall provide at least two driveway access points to the development. Trip generation shall be determined by the methods established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2. Creating an obstructed street, as defined in 18.88.020.G, is prohibited. (ORD 2951, amended, 07/01/2008) SECTION 18.72.140 Light and Glare Performance Standards. There shall be no direct illumination of any residential zone from a lighting standard in any other residential lot, C-1, E-1 or M-1, SO, or HC lot. SECTION 18.72.150 Review by Conservation Coordinator. A. Upon receiving an application for a Site Review, the Staff Advisor shall refer the application to the Conservation Coordinator for comment. B. Prior to final approval of a site plan, the Conservation Coordinator shall file an oral or written report to be entered into the record of the proceedings consisting of: 1. An assessment of the energy use estimates by the applicant. 2. An assessment of the applicant's energy use strategies. 3. Recommendations to the applicant of cost-effective methods to further reduce energy consumption, if any exist. (Ord 2689, 1992) SECTION 18.72.160 Landscaping Maintenance. A. All landscaped areas must be maintained in a weed-free condition. B. All landscaped areas required by this Chapter must be maintained according to the approved landscaping plans. (Ord. 2228, 1982) SECTION 18.72.170 Development Standards for Disc Antennas. A. Building Permit Required. All disc antennas shall be subject to review and approval of the building official where required by the Building Code. B. Development Standards. All disc antennas shall be located, designed, constructed, treated and maintained in accordance with the following standards: 1. Antennas shall be installed and maintained in compliance with the requirements of the Building Code. 2. Disc antennas exceeding one (1) meter in diameter shall not be permitted on the roof, except where there is no other location on the lot which provides access to receiving or transmitting signals. In no case shall any part of any antenna be located more than ten feet above the apex of the roof surface. Antennas mounted on the roof shall be located in the least visible location as viewed from adjacent right-of-ways, and residential structures in residential zones. 3. No more than one disc antenna shall be permitted on each tract of land. 4. Ground mounted disc antennas shall be erected or maintained to the rear of the main building, except in those instances when the subject property is cul-de-sac or corner lot where the side yard is larger than the rear yard, in which case the antenna may be located in the side yard. Antennas shall not be located in any required setback area. No portion of an antenna array shall extend beyond the property lines or into any front yard area. Guy wires shall not be anchored within any front yard area but may be attached to the building. 5. Antennas may be ground-mounted, free standing, or supported by guy wires, buildings, or other structures in compliance with the manufacturer's structural specifications. Ground-mounted antennas shall be any antenna with its base mounted directly in the ground, even if such antenna is supported or attached to the wall of a building. 6. The antenna, including guy wires, supporting structures and accessory equipment, shall be located and designed so as to minimize the visual impact on surrounding properties and from public streets. Antennas shall be screened through the addition of architectural features and/or landscaping that harmonize with the elements and characteristics of the property. The materials used in constructing the antenna shall not be unnecessarily bright, shiny, garish, or reflective. Whenever possible, disc antennas shall be constructed out of mesh material and painted a color that will blend with the background. 7. Antennas shall meet all manufacturer's specifications. The mast or tower shall be non- combustible. Corrosive hardware, such as brackets, turnbuckles, clips and similar type equipment if used, shall be protected by plating or otherwise to guard against corrosion. 8. Every antenna must be adequately grounded, for protection against a direct strike of lightning, with an adequate ground wire. Ground wires shall be of the type approved by the latest edition of the Electrical Code for grounding masts and lightning arrestors and shall be installed in a mechanical manner, with as few bends as possible, maintaining a clearance of at least two inches from combustible materials. Lightning arrestors shall be used that are approved as safe by the Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc., and both sides of the line must be adequately protected with proper arrestors to remove static charges accumulated on the line. When lead-in conductors of polyethylene ribbon-type are used, lightning arrestors must be installed in each conductor. When coaxial cable or shielded twin lead is used for lead-in, suitable protection may be provided without lightning arrestors by grounding the exterior metal sheath. 9. Antennas may contain no sign or graphic design as defined in the Ashland Sign Code, even if the sign is permitted on the property. (ORD 2951, amended, 07/01/2008) SECTION 18.72.180 Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities. A. Purpose and Intent - The purpose of this section is to establish standards that regulate the placement, appearance and impact of wireless communication facilities, while providing residents with the ability to access and adequately utilize the services that these facilities support. Because of the physical characteristics of wireless communication facilities, the impact imposed by these facilities affect not only the neighboring residents, but the community as a whole. The standards are intended to ensure that the visual and aesthetic impacts of wireless communication facilities are mitigated to the greatest extent possible, especially in or near residential areas. B. Submittals - In addition to the submittals required in section 18.72.060, the following items shall be provided as part of the application for a wireless communication facility. 1. A photo of each of the major components of a similar installation, including a photo montage of the overall facility as proposed. 2. Exterior elevations of the proposed wireless communication facility (min 1"=10'). 3. A set of manufacturers specifications of the support structure, antennas, and accessory buildings with a listing of materials being proposed including colors of the exterior materials. 4. A site plan indicating all structures, land uses and zoning designation within 150 feet of the site boundaries, or 300 feet if the height of the structure is greater than 80 feet. 5. A map showing existing wireless communication facility sites operated by the applicant within a 5 mile radius of the proposed site. 6. A collocation feasibility study that adequately indicates collocation efforts were made and states the reasons collocation can or cannot occur. 7. A copy of the lease agreement for the proposed site showing that the agreement does not preclude collocation. 8. Documentation detailing the general capacity of the tower in terms of the number and type of antennas it is designed to accommodate. 9. Any other documentation the applicant feels is relevant to comply with the applicable design standards. 10. Documentation that the applicant has held a local community meeting to inform members of the surrounding area of the proposed wireless communication facility. Documentation to include: a. a copy of the mailing list to properties within 300' of the proposed facility. b. a copy of the notice of community meeting, mailed one week prior to the meeting. c. a copy of the newspaper ad placed in a local paper one week prior to the meeting. d. a summary of issues raised during the meeting. C. Design Standards - All wireless communication facilities shall be located, designed, constructed, treated and maintained in accordance with the following standards: 1. General Provisions a. All facilities shall be installed and maintained in compliance with the requirements of the Building Code. At the time of building permit application, written statements from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Aeronautics Section of the Oregon Department of Transportation, and the Federal Communication Commission that the proposed wireless communication facility complies with regulations administered by that agency, or that the facility is exempt from regulation. b. All associated transmittal equipment must be housed in a building, above or below ground level, which must be designed and landscaped to achieve minimal visual impact with the surrounding environment. c. Wireless communication facilities shall be exempted from height limitations imposed in each zoning district. d. WCF shall be installed at the minimum height and mass necessary for its intended use. A submittal verifying the proposed height and mass shall be prepared by a licensed engineer. e. Signage for wireless communication facilities shall consist of a maximum of two non- illuminated signs, with a maximum of two square feet each stating the name of the facility operator and a contact phone number. f. Applicant is required to remove all equipment and structures from the site and return the site to its original condition, or condition as approved by the Staff Advisor, if the facility is abandoned for a period greater than six months. Removal and restoration must occur within 90 days of the end of the six month period. 2. Preferred Designs a. Where possible, the use of existing WCF sites for new installations shall be encouraged. Collocation of new facilities on existing facilities shall be the preferred option. b. If (a) above is not feasible, WCF shall be attached to pre-existing structures, when feasible. c. If (a) or (b) above are not feasible, alternative structures shall be used with design features that conceal, camouflage or mitigate the visual impacts created by the proposed WCF. d. If (a), (b), or (c) listed above are not feasible, a monopole design shall be used with the attached antennas positioned in a vertical manner to lessens the visual impact compared to the antennas in a platform design. Platform designs shall be used only if it is shown that the use of an alternate attached antenna design is not feasible. e. Lattice towers are prohibited as freestanding wireless communication support structures. 3. Landscaping. The following standards apply to all WCF with any primary or accessory equipment located on the ground and visible from a residential use or the public right-of-way a. Vegetation and materials shall be selected and sited to produce a drought resistant landscaped area. b. The perimeter of the WCF shall be enclosed with a security fence or wall. Such barriers shall be landscaped in a manner that provides a natural sight obscuring screen around the barrier to a minimum height of six feet. c. The outer perimeter of the WCF shall have a 10 foot landscaped buffer zone. d. The landscaped area shall be irrigated and maintained to provide for proper growth and health of the vegetation. e. One tree shall be required per 20 feet of the landscape buffer zone to provide a continuous canopy around the perimeter of the WCF. Each tree shall have a caliper of 2 inches, measured at breast height, at the time of planting. 4. Visual Impacts a. Antennas, if attached to a pre-existing or alternative structure shall be integrated into the existing building architecturally and, to the greatest extent possible, shall not exceed the height of the pre-existing or alternative structure. b. Wireless communication facilities shall be located in the area of minimal visual impact within the site which will allow the facility to function consistent with its purpose. c. Antennas, if attached to a pre-existing or alternative structure shall have a non-reflective finish and color that blends with the color and design of the structure to which it is attached. d. WCF, in any zone, must be set back from any residential zone a distance equal to twice its overall height. The setback requirement may be reduced if, as determined by the Hearing Authority, it can be demonstrated through findings of fact that increased mitigation of visual impact can be achieved within of the setback area. Underground accessory equipment is not subject to the setback requirement. e. Exterior lighting for a WCF is permitted only when required by a federal or state authority. f. All wireless communication support structures must have a non-reflective finish and color that will mitigate visual impact, unless otherwise required by other government agencies. g. Should it be deemed necessary by the Hearing Authority for the mitigation of visual impact of the WCF, additional design measures may be required. These may include, but are not limited to: additional camouflage materials and designs, facades, specific colors and materials, masking, shielding techniques. 5. Collocation standards a. Each addition of an antenna to an existing WCF requires a building permit, unless the additional antenna increases the height of the facility more than ten feet. b. Addition of antennas to an existing WCF that increases the overall height of the facility more than ten feet is subject to a site review."(ORD 2802, S3 1997) D. All installation of wireless communication systems shall be subject to the requirements of this section in addition to all applicable Site Design and Use Standards and are subject to the following approval process: Zoning Designations Attached to Existing Structures Alternative Structures Freestanding Support Structures Residential Zones(1) CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-1 CUP CUP Prohibited C-1-D (Downtown)(2) CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-1 - Freeway overlay Site Review Site Review CUP E-1 Site Review Site Review CUP M-1 Site Review Site Review CUP SOU Site Review CUP CUP NM (North Mountain) Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Historic District(2) CUP Prohibited Prohibited A-1 (Airport Overlay) CUP CUP CUP HC (Health Care) CUP Prohibited Prohibited Appendix #2C: SECTION 18.96.160 Historic Signs. A. Historic Sign Inventory. The inventory of historically significant signs shall be established by resolution of the City Council. B. Criteria for designation of historic signs. All signs for which designation as a Historic Sign are requested shall be substantially in existence at the time of the application; shall be displayed in their original location; shall be in association with an important event, person, group, or business in the history of the City of Ashland; shall follow a guideline of being in existence for approximately 40 years; and shall meet one of the following criteria: 1. The sign is exemplary of technology, craftsmanship or design of the period when it was constructed, uses historic sign materials or means of illumination, and is not significantly altered from its historic period. If the sign has been altered, it must be restorable to its historic appearance. 2. The sign is integrated into the architecture of the building and is exemplary of a historically significant architectural style. C. The owner of any sign may request that said sign be reviewed for significance in the Historic Sign Inventory upon written application to the City Council. Application fees shall be the same as for Type I applications. Applications shall include written findings addressing the criteria for designation of historic signs, and current and historic photographs of the sign, if available. 1. The Council shall refer all requests for inclusion on the Historic Sign Inventory to the Historic Commission for review and recommendation to the Council within 30 days of the request. Notice of the Historic Commission meeting shall be mailed to all affected property owners within 100' of the subject property. If a recommendation is not made within 30 days, the request shall be forwarded to the Council without a recommendation. 2. The Council shall, after receiving the recommendation of the Historic Commission or after 30 days, provide notice to all affected property owners within 100' of the subject property of a public hearing before the City Council. 3. The Council shall decide, based on the criteria above and the recommendation of the Historic Commission, whether to approve the request to include the sign on the inventory. 4. Inclusion on the Historic Sign Inventory shall be by resolution of the Council. 5. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant. D. Signs on the Historic Sign Inventory in any zoning district shall be exempt from the requirements of this Section except Sections 18.96.110 and 18.96.120(D). Also, that the sign area of the historic sign is exempted from the total allowable sign area, as defined in this Section, except as modified by Council conditions in E. below. E. The City Council shall have the authority to impose conditions regulating area, maintenance, etc. on the signs included in the Historic Sign Inventory to further the purpose and intent of this ordinance. F. Removal or demolition of a Historic Sign shall be done under permit and approval of the Staff Advisor. The Historic Commission shall review the permit at their next regularly scheduled meeting and shall have the authority to delay issuance for 30 days from the date of their review meeting. Such delay shall be to allow the Commission the opportunity to discuss alternate plans for the sign with the applicant. G. Signs on the Historic Sign Inventory, which have been destroyed or damaged by fire or other calamity, by act of God or by public enemy to an extent greater than 50%, may be reconstructed in an historically accurate manner. Such reconstruction shall be authorized by the City Council, only after determination that the reconstruction will be an accurate duplication of the historic sign, based on review of photographic or other documentary evidence specifying the historic design. The Historic Commission shall review and make recommendations to the City Council on all such reconstructions. H. Maintenance and Modification of Historic Signs. 1. All parts of the historic sign, including but not limited to neon tubes, incandescent lights and shields, and sign faces, shall be maintained in a functioning condition as historically intended for the sign. Replacement of original visible components with substitutes to retain the original appearance shall be permitted provided such replacements accurately reproduce the size, shape, color and finish of the original. Failure to maintain the sign in accord with this section shall be grounds for review of the historic sign designation by the City Council. 2. Modifications of a historic sign may be allowed, after review by the Historic Commission and approval by the City Council, only if such modifications do not substantially change the historic style, scale, height, type of material or dimensions of the historic sign, and does not result in a sign which does not meet the criteria for designation as a historic sign. 3. Changes in the location of a historic sign may be allowed, after review by the Historic Commission and approval by the City Council, only if such locational change does not result in the sign no longer meeting the criteria for designation as a historic sign. (Ord. 2598, 1990) #3 Type and Number of Reviews- 2006-2008 Historic Commission Ashland Permits DATE ADDRESS PROJECT INFORMAL REVIEW PRE-APP PHYS & ENV PARTITION CONDITIONAL USE VARIANCE SITE REVIEW FINAL APPROVAL DESCRIPTION Jan 06 125 Sherman 1 1 1 1 construct residential unit above existing garage 247 Third 1 1 1 expand a non-conforming building for 1st and 2nd story addition 758 B Street 1 1 2nd story addition to garage at rear of property Feb 06 145 E Main 1 1 3 story mixed use commercial 160 Helman 1 1 mixed use development Mar 06 451 N Main 1 1 mod of CU; add one guest unit to B&B 175 N Main 1 1 First Methodist Church, site review 247 Third 1 PC approval subject to HC approval of revised plans Apr 08 175 N Main 1 1 First Methodist Church, site review; includes demo and tree removal May 06 160 Nob Hill 1 1 1 Accessory residential unit- 460 sq ft attached to garage 175 N Main continuation of First Methodist church project Jun 06 520 Fairview 1 1 1 modify existing non-conforming porch &garage lot 6507 A street 1 1 site review/informal 160 Helman 1 site review/informal Jul 06 A Street; 5th & 6th 1 2 story mixed use/Detail Site Review zone 160 Helman 1 1 mixed use development 158 Nutley 1 1 1 exceed MPFA; increase density; 4 units; Denial recommended 520 Fairview 1 review of design details prior to Bldg permit submittal as conditioned by HC approval Aug 06 160 Helman continuation of 160 Helman St project 11 first street 1 1 potential design mod Sep 08 11First Street 1 modification of Site Design app for mixed use 150 Lithia Way 1 1 follow up review of design details prior to building permit as conditioned by HC and PC north main & Glenn St. 1 site review commercial Oct 06 160 Helman continuation of 160 Helman St project 175 N Main 1 follow up review of design details prior to building permit as conditioned by HC and PC Nov 06 160 Helman continuation of 160 Helman St project 25 N Main 1 1 1 3rd story addition to existing commercial 144 N Second 1 modification of pre-app proposal for CU to exceed MPFA Dec 08 144 Second 1 1 1 3 unit travellers accomodation/tree removal CU 25 N Main continuation of 3rd story addition project 15 3 4 0 0 9 6 9 4Totals for 2006 Page 1 of 3 Ashland Permits DATE ADDRESS PROJECT INFORMAL REVIEW PRE-APP PHYS & ENV PARTITION CONDITIONAL USE VARIANCE SITE REVIEW FINAL APPROVAL DESCRIPTION Jan 07 20 E Main 1 remodel of City Hall 25 N Main continuation of 3rd story addition project 180 Meade Street 1 1 1 convert accessory bldg to residential unit N Main and Glenn 1 1 1 construct 2 story office building Feb 07 630 Siskiyou 1 1 operate 2 unit travelers accomodation N Main and Glenn continuation of 2 story office building review 11 First Street 1 1 review of Bldg Permit per conditions of approval on Planning Actions Apr 07 237 Almond 1 1 1 construct 920 sq. ft accessory 520 Fairview 1 1 review of Bldg Permit per conditions of approval on Planning Actions May 07 900 Iowa Street 1 1 CU to convert existing res /& cottage to 5 unit travelers accomodation; no change to structure 105 Nutley 1 1 108 sq. foot addition 11 First Street continuation of review of Bldg Permit per conditions of approval on Planning Actions Jun 07 80 Wimer St 1 1 addition to residence; exceeds MPFA for HD by 22% Jul 07 485 A St 1 1 modification to previous Site Review - reconfig. Parking lot Aug 07 281 Fourth St. 1 1 1 Type II Variance for parking; CU for theater use Sep 07 157 N Main 1 1 CU to convert existing MF to 2 unit travelers accom. No changes to structure proposed. Oct 07 542-A Street 1 1 1 Admin Variance to Site Design Standards to eliminate required landscape buffer; Variance to reduce parking; 165 Lithia Way 1 1 mixed use office and resid building Nov 07 165 Lithia Way continuation of pre-app for mixed use 14 1 1 0 0 8 3 5 2Totals for 2007 Page 2 of 3 Ashland Permits DATE ADDRESS PROJECT INFORMAL REVIEW PRE-APP PHYS & ENV PARTITION CONDITIONAL USE VARIANCE SITE REVIEW FINAL APPROVAL DESCRIPTION Jan 08 11 First St 1 1 2 story mixed use in Detail Site Review Zone/tree removal; previous approved in 2006- expired. 123 N First/165 Lithia Way 1 1 1 3 story mixed use; admin variance to parking 1070 Tolman Creek Rd. 1 1 1 new school; renovation of existing 1908 school; parking Var. Feb 08 542 A Street 1 1 modification of previous site review app; increase size of shed 172 Skidmore 1 1 1 1 construct 2 bathroom additions; variance to requirement that offstreet parking be paved. 1070 Tolman Creek Rd. continuation of school review Apr 08 600 Siskiyou 1 1 1 modification of previous review; office use; no proposed changes to structure 140 Central Ave 1 1 1 1 2 unit travelers accom; Variance for parking 160 Helman 1 1 review of Building Permit May 08 215 Fourth 1 1 1 operate a private dance school; variance to parking Jun 08 165 Lithia 1 1 allow operation of outdoor farmers market 265 N Main 1 1 Use of Briscoe School; individ. Artists Workspaces and community events 135 Susan lane 1 1 Construct 21 square foot addition to residence 358 High/60 Wimer St. 1 1 CU permit for a 3 unit travellers accomodation 954 Siskiyou 1 1 1 Site Review for office use in resident. Zone Water St Bridge 1 1 CU for sign/ installation of artwork under bridge 1070 Tolman Creek Rd. 1 review of Building Permit Jul 08 165 W Fork St. 1 1 1 new school; renovation of existing 1908 school; new construction of sfr; hillsides land; var for height of retaining wal 303/323 Oak 1 1 1 1 minor partition for 2 lots; Variance to setback; PE for encroach into FP 33 Morse 1 1 CU covert garage to res use/part of home 872 B Street 1 1 390 sq. foot addition to second story Aug 08 637/649 E Main 1 1 1 construct 2 additional motel units/tree removal 165 W Fork St. continuation of SFR new construction review 2008 to date 20 0 0 2 1 12 7 10 2 Page 3 of 3 Appendix #4: Comprehensive Plan Map Appendix #5: Summary of Questionnaires for Staff/Historic Commission 1. Do you feel that the current code gives you as staff enough clarity to make recommendations to the Historic Commission? Are the codes too vague or restrictive? How will the new Ordinance requirements which go into effect in July impact your work with the Commission? One staff respondent felt that the current code was “well balanced…fairly restrictive but provides for measures of flexibility.” One respondent felt that the Site Design Standards work for commercial buildings but not for residential buildings. Two respondents did not address the current code. Four of four respondents address the changes that will occur with the new ordinance. All felt that the new ordinance would not significantly change the current process. One respondent stated that the primary change required by the new ordinance will be larger scale drawings with more detail. Another stated that the biggest change would be how the Historic Commission provides comment on administrative decisions. 2. Are there specific issues that arise repeatedly (replacement of windows, infill construction, etc) that you feel need to be better addressed by code? Are there situations that arise which are not addressed by the code? If so, what are they and how do you handle them? Three of four respondents answered this question by stating the issues that they perceived were important to the Historic Commissioners. These included changes to siding, roofing and windows, which the commissioners do not review because they do not require permits. One respondent noted that the Commissioners are advisory only and have no authority to deny an application, which leads some applicants to forgo appearing before the Review Board at all. One respondent was not aware of any specific issues that have not been addressed, but did bring up infill as a broader community issue. The respondent stated that issues such as house size or demolition of historic resources arose in the past they were addressed with code modifications. 3. How would you describe the current process in place for processing and reviewing historic resource permit applications? Is this process easy to explain to the public and is it timely and efficient? One respondent described the process this way: With the new ordinance revisions taking effect in July, any exterior modification to a contributing resource which requires a building permit will also require a Site Review approval (a land use action). As part of this requirement, applicants will be required to conduct a pre-application conference where the process specific to their proposal can be explained, and the applicants advised to speak with the Historic Commission’s Review Board, the Historic Commission staff support person, and/or the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) early on in the planning of their project. The process is relatively easy to explain. Two respondents noted that the new process will take additional time. “While it will not be as timely and efficient as what could have been a simple over-the-counter building permit, we believed it was important to have a more thorough review.” “The need to have the Commission review all the planning applications does present some challenges timing-wise under our new code, since all administrative applications will have to be timed such that they can go through Historic and Tree Commission Review before approval, which depending on when they are turned in may add several weeks to the process.” Two respondents noted difficulties with the process. One stated that the public does not “understand that whether or not your home is historic, all applications within the districts will be reviewed by the Commissioners.” Another respondent noted that because the historic review comments are not binding, some applicants feel it is a waste of time “since they have no obligation to follow the suggestions. It also causes some confusion and rarely compliance problems if the applicants assume or are led to believe that the suggestions are required and they find out later that they aren’t. The Review Board has on occasion stated their suggestions as a condition rather than a suggestion.” 4. What sorts of decisions do you make administratively? Would you like the ability to make additional decisions this way? If so, which ones? One respondent stated that staff does not do historic review administratively. The respondent felt this was appropriate because staff have limited knowledge of historic architecture, and so the Review Board and Commission are more able to conduct this type of review. One respondent noted that with the new ordinance, building permits affecting historic contributing resources will require a site review as a result of staff suggestions. “These decisions will be an administrative approval, but will enable more thorough review by staff and the commission and allow for input from neighbors with the possibility to request a hearing if they have concerns.” One respondent stated that “Non-contributing resources could still be reviewed and given ministerial approval, pending review by the Historic Commission Review Board for general compatibility with the district.” Some land use actions are use actions rather than physical changes to a structure or site. In some cases it may make sense for Historic to comment, but in many others there is little reason to bring it before them 5. Do you feel that there is adequate staff available to address historic preservation issues? Three of four respondents felt that staffing is generally adequate or that the Historic Commission is staffed as well as other boards. Two of four respondents noted that the historic commissioners were very helpful, and volunteered significant time to assist staff. Commissioners are available weekly and provide regular feedback on a variety of issues. Two respondents felt that the planning department was understaffed in all areas, but that this was unlikely to change. 6. Do you have a code enforcement officer? If not, who is responsible for responding to and dealing with preservation related enforcement issues? One respondent noted that historic commissioners often report problems themselves that are then dealt with by Code Enforcement. One respondent stated that the code enforcement officer position was considered for elimination in the current budget cycle and will likely be considered again next year. In that case, the respondent assumes that planners would have to deal with code enforcement. One respondent was not aware of many preservation related enforcement issues. Two respondents stated that the building inspectors are responsive and aware of historic preservation issues. One respondent said that complaints are researched by planners with support from the code enforcement officer. One respondent noted that the city has “a Code Compliance Officer as well as a Permit Center Manager that manages the Code Compliance Program. Between the two, preservation related enforcement is able to be responded to quickly.” 7. Is there adequate information available to you about historic resources, and is it organized and easily accessible? Do you feel there are adequate maps of the historic resources and that they are accessible to both staff and the public? Four of four respondents stated that they knew of easily accessible maps available on-line and at the office. One respondent stated that the National Historic District boundaries do not match up with the Ashland Historic District boundaries. One respondent stated that maps are available to staff electronically but only the district map is on the website. Two of four respondents stated that the historic inventories are well done and useful. Three of four expressed the opinion that inventory information should be available on-line to the public. One respondent stated that there is “some interesting stuff on file in the back, but it needs to be gone through, which would be time-consuming.” 8. What preservation oriented programs do you think would be the most useful for the city given enough time and funding? What programs have been successful in the past? Are there certain programs which have already been started/funded by the City and not implemented? If so why? Two respondents stated that they did not feel knowledgeable enough to respond to this question. One respondent mentioned the Commission’s desire to register some historic structures outside the historic districts. Two respondents expressed that educational programs could be effective, such as brochures for homeowners, Historic Preservation Week, and brown bag lunches on preservation topics such as historic window restoration. One respondent suggested special assessment programs to encourage restoration, as well as land use policies encouraging traveler’s accommodations in the districts. 9. Does the Historic Commission usually accept the recommendations of Staff? If not, in what way do they deviate? Do you feel that the Historic treats all applicants the same and applies the codes fairly and evenly? Three of four respondents felt that the Commission is willing to take the recommendations of staff, and are respectful of staff. “Their review and recommendations provide valuable input which enhances the level of detail provided in the staff recommendations. It seems to me that the Commission and staff work very well together and that our efforts are mutually beneficial.” One respondent felt that the reason the commission might disagree with staff is that staff is trying to balance all code requirements while the Commission is “primarily focused on issues of historic preservation and compatibility within historic neighborhoods.” Another respondent felt that they agree with staff about mass, scale and compatibility but differ about “actual designs and often ask for detail design changes to the exteriors.” Two respondents stated that they feel that the Commission treats all applicants fairly and evenly. “Applicants generally recognize the value of their input and benefit through its integration in their projects. There are still one or two people within the local development community who take an adversarial view of the process and who may have a more difficult time with the Commission or the Review Board, but I think the Commissioners are aware and able to deal with them fairly and evenly.” One respondent felt that there were issues related to running a formal meeting in order to “preserve the sense that process is being followed and no one has a chance to influence the Commissioners by “for instance, talking which the Commission is deliberating.” One respondent felt that the make-up of the commission at any given meeting affects the consistency of the results. “There are several strong members that can sway things and when they are not in attendance the same issues may not be addressed or may be in a lesser manner.” 10. Do you have anything else to add? One respondent answered this question: “I am impressed by the Commissions commitment to historic preservation in Ashland. Collectively and individually, they have a lot of knowledge relating to Ashland’s history. Also, it seems that the community as a whole is more sensitive to the value of historic preservation than in many other Southern Oregon cities. It seems like these are real assets to the job of preservation that can be built on despite some of the constraints that budget may put on the program.” *Individual responses are on file at the Planning Department Historic Commission Summary 1. Do you feel adequately trained to perform the duties of a Historic Commissioner? Would you like additional training? No training was provided to commissioners by the city. Three out of five commissioners responded that they felt their educational and professional backgrounds adequately prepared them to be commissioners. Three of five commissioners responded positively to the possibility of additional training. One suggested a mentor for new commissioners. One mentioned a desire to learn more about city codes and the duties of a historic commissioner. One mentioned the need to be knowledgeable about construction and building plans. 2. Do you feel that the current code gives you as a Commission enough clarity to make clear and consistent decisions? Is the code too vague? Is it too restrictive? Not restrictive enough? One commissioner answered that he relies on city staff to interpret and explain the code to the commission. Two commissioners felt that the code was not restrictive enough on historic properties. One commissioner noted that some land use actions are never reviewed by the commission, such as changing siding. This commissioner also felt the need for binding design review within the historic districts. One commissioner recommended looking to Medford and Jacksonville for more restrictive code models. Two commissioners mentioned that the code needs to be applied more consistently. One mentioned the that the subjective nature of the code means that sometimes it is applied more strictly than at other times. 3. If you feel that the code sometimes requires significant interpretation and lacks specifics, do you feel comfortable interpreting the code and applying it evenly, or would you prefer more specific direction be written into the code? Commissioners were divided on this subject. One felt that the code was understandable. One relies on staff for interpreting code. One feels that the code should be clearer and more restrictive. One feels that more specificity is not needed but more clarity and consistency is. One feels that there are enough specifics, but interpretation is challenging because one needs depth of knowledge in zoning and code. 4. Are you happy with the current review process? Do you feel it provides property owners with a fair and timely review? If not, what would you like to change? Four of five respondents are happy with the current process. One would like the commission to have more input than it currently does. One respondent noted that the process needs to be more consistent, and that fluctuations in the way applications are handles are frustrating to property owners. 5. Do you feel that your Commission effectively communicates with and educates historic property owners in Ashland? One commissioner felt that the commission does a good job educating owners. Two felt that the commission was not effective in this area. One felt that this was because the commission is advisory rather than regulatory. One felt that everyone who purchases a property in a historic district should get a handbook and be invited to the Review Board so that they know what is involved when they want to make changes to their property. One commissioner feels that the Commission is very effective when they are in crisis mode and there are historic resources threatened, but are not proactive in education. Time is spent in reviewing land use applications rather than in education. 6. Are there specific issues that arise repeatedly (replacement of windows, infill construction, etc) that you feel need to be better addressed by the Commission? If so, how would you like to see them addressed? Two commissioners noted that there are numerous recurring issues, but felt that the commission addressed them adequately on a case by case basis. Specific issues raised by commissioners include windows, porches, gables, rooflines, siding replacement, paint colors and new construction. Suggestions for improving the way the commission deals with these issues include a more restrictive code for historic properties, including stricter standards within the written code, and having more commissioners with design/history background. Another suggestion is having commissioners meet with property owners to “look at the property and discuss its design features to be preserved/followed, before the owner goes to the trouble of hiring the contractor.” 7. Do you feel that communication between your Commission, Planning Commission and Council is effective? If not, how would you like to improve it? All respondents mentioned that there is little to no communication between the Historic Commission, Planning Commission and Council. The Council rep rarely attends Historic Commission meetings. One commissioner wondered if the Planning Commission and Council pay attention to the Historic Commission findings and recommendations, because there is no verbal or written communication of their opinion to the Commissions actions. One commissioner noted that the do usually accept the Commissions findings. 8. What preservation oriented programs do you think would be the most useful for the City given enough time and funding? • Incorporate archaeological resources in the interpretation of the city’s history and prehistory. • Make new owners in the historic district aware of codes regarding historic preservation. • Addition budgets for training of commissioners and attending training sessions and conferences. • Work closer with state affiliate, the Historic Preservation League of Oregon, the National Trust and the University of Oregon historic preservation program. • Amend the special assessment program to allow an additional 1 year tax freeze as allowed by the state. 9. Is there anything else you would like to add? “When plans and elevations are presented to Review Board, the designer needs to include more specifics— photos of the existing building, if it’s an addition, perspectives, a sense of context, and definitely scale! Some drawings come in hand-drawn and not at all to scale. If there were a consistent standard required of all presenters, it would improve the process.” “I feel that the commission spends far too much time dealing with new construction, new building downtown in particular and almost no time dealing with historic properties which I feel what the commissions major mission is!” “Again, the single most important thing we can do as a community to protect our historic fabric is to strengthen the code and provide for binding design review.” “Interpretive signage and other techniques could be used to interpret and increase understanding of the city’s past. Specific features include: (1) the original Ashland mill sites, (2) structures in the vicinity of Bluebird Park, (3) the prehistoric and historic Shasta village site that was formerly located where the planning department stands today. The city-owned historical and archaeological features at the Lithia Springs site should be interpreted on-site and open to the public.” *Individual responses are on file at the Planning Department Appendix #6: Summary of Survey Results City of Ashland Historic Preservation Questionnaire First Respondent Date: 19 Jun 2008 18:20 Last Respondent Date: 25 Jul 2008 22:19 Number of Completed Surveys: 40 In your opinion, which of the identified geographic areas have historic or cultural resources that are most in need of protection? Downtown District 27 Hargadine District 12 Railroad District 20 Skidmore District 8 Other: 7 Total: 74 Do you think the City is doing a good job of protecting these historic resources? Yes 23 No 10 Total: 33 Do you believe that most of the existing historic resources within the city have been identified? Yes 27 No 9 Total: 36 If not, what additional resources would you like to see identified and preserved within the City of Ashland? Total: 18 Do you feel that the current City Codes adequately address the protection of historic resources? Yes 24 No 11 Total: 35 If you are an historic property owner, do you feel like you know what sort of work requires historic review? Yes 16 No 6 Total: 22 Do you understand the review process, and do you feel it is fair? Yes 17 No 8 Total: 25 What changes would you like to see in the Codes or the review process if any? Total: 23 What sorts of programs are you aware of in the City to educate residents and visitors about the history of Ashland? Total: 25 Do you think additional programs or services are necessary? Yes 19 No 10 Total: 29 If so, what kind of programs would you like to see? Total: 21 Would you be interested in receiving a regular newsletter from the City with articles about local history and proper techniques for restoration? Yes 25 No 11 Total: 36 What other sorts of educational topics would interest you? Total: 13 Do you think the City should offer grants or loans to historic property owners? Yes 25 No 9 Total: 34 *For a more complete copy of responses, including names and contact information, please contact the Ashland Planning Department Appendix #7a: Draft Oregon Model Historic Preservation Ordinance Section I - TITLE (The City of ___, ___ County) Historic Preservation Ordinance Section II - PURPOSE (The City of ___, ___ County) recognizes that certain significant historic resources located within its boundaries contribute to the unique character of the community and are irreplaceable, and as such, merit preservation. This ordinance establishes a Historic Landmark Commission; a program for the identification, evaluation, and designation of historic resources as landmarks; public incentives for the preservation of Designated Landmarks; and land use regulations regarding the alteration, moving or demolition of Designated Landmarks and Historic Resources of Statewide Significance. Section III - DEFINITIONS The following definitions apply to terms used in this ordinance. Terms not defined have their commonly construed meaning. Alteration - An addition, removal, or reconfiguration which significantly changes the character of a historic resource, including new construction in historic districts. Demolition - The razing, destruction, or dismantling of a resource to the degree that its historic character is substantially obliterated. Designated Landmark - A property officially recognized by (The City of ___, ___ County) as important in its history. Designated Landmarks Register - The list of, and record of information about, properties officially recognized by (The City of ___, ___ County) as important in its history. Extraordinary Historic Importance - The quality of historic significance achieved outside the usual norms of age, association, or rarity. Historic Integrity - The quality of wholeness of historic location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and/or association of a resource, as opposed to its physical condition. Historic Resource - A building, structure, object, site, or district which meets the significance and integrity criteria for designation as a landmark. Resource types are further described as: Building - A construction made for purposes of shelter or habitation, e. g. house, barn, store, theater, train station, garage, school, etc. Structure - A construction made for functions other than shelter or habitation, e. g. bridge, windmill, dam, highway, boat, kiln, etc. Object - A construction which is primarily artistic or commemorative in nature and not normally movable or part of a building or structure, e. g. statue, fountain, milepost, monument, sign, etc Site - The location of a significant event, use, or occupation which may include associated standing, ruined, or underground features, e. g. battlefield, shipwreck, campsite, cemetery, natural feature, garden, food-gathering area, etc. District - A geographically defined area possessing a significant concentration of buildings, structures, objects, and/or sites which are unified historically by plan or physical development, e. g. downtown, residential neighborhood, military reservation, ranch complex, etc. Historic Resources of Statewide Significance - Buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Inventory of Historic Resources - The record of information about resources potentially significant in the history of (The City of ___, ___ County). Relocation - The removal of a resource from its historic context. Section IV - (The City of ___, ___ County)HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION 1. The (Mayor and the Council or Board of Commissioners) shall appoint a Historic Landmark Commission, hereinafter the Commission, of (three, five, seven, or nine) members with a demonstrated positive interest, knowledge, or competence in historic preservation to carry out the provisions of this ordinance. A majority of the members shall reside within the corporate boundaries of (The City of ___, ___ County). Members shall serve without compensation, but are eligible for reimbursement of expenses related to their service. 2. Initial appointments to the Commission shall be for terms of one, two, and three years. Subsequent terms of appointment shall be for three years, or in the case of a replacement, for the remainder of the unexpired term. Members shall be eligible for reappointment. 3. A simple majority of the seated members shall constitute a quorum to conduct official business. 4. A Chair and Vice-Chair shall be elected annually by and from the seated membership. Officers are eligible for reelection. 5. The Commission shall meet at least twice a year, and as required to conduct business in a timely fashion. Notice of the meetings shall be in accordance with applicable state law. Minutes, applications, staff reports, findings, and decisions of the Commission shall be maintained as public records in accordance with applicable state law. Section V - POWERS AND DUTIES OF (The City of ___, ___ County)HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION 1. The Commission may adopt and amend by-laws, subject to approval by the (City Council or Board of Commissioners), to regulate its internal operations. 2. For purposes consistent with this ordinance and subject to the approval of the (City Council or Board of Commissioners), the Commission may seek, accept, and expend public appropriations; seek, accept, and expend grant and gift funds; cooperate with public and private entities; and employ clerical and expert assistance. 3. The Commission may undertake to inform the citizens of, and visitors to (The City of ___, ___ County), regarding the community's history and prehistory; promote research into its history and prehistory; collect and make available materials on the preservation of historic resources; provide information on state and federal preservation programs; document historic resources prior to their alteration, demolition, or relocation and archive that documentation; assist the owners of historic resources in securing funding for the preservation of their properties; and recommend public incentives and code amendments to the (City Council or Board of Commissioners). 4. The Commission may develop and publish, or adopt, written and graphic guideline and example materials to clarify the criteria in this ordinance and to assist applicants in developing complete and viable applications. 5. Employing the procedures and criteria in Section VI of this ordinance, the Commission shall periodically identify and evaluate the historic resources of (The City of ___, ___ County) and maintain an Inventory of Historic Resources. At such time as surveys are being conducted, owners of the subject properties shall be notified and invited to provide comment and input. 6. Employing the procedures and criteria in Section VII of this ordinance, the Commission shall periodically revise the Designated Landmarks Register of (The City of ___, ___ County), by addingor deleting properties. 7. Employing the procedures and criteria in Section VIII of this ordinance, the Commission shall review and act upon applications for the alteration, relocation, or demolition of Designated Landmarks, or the major exterior alteration, relocation, or demolition of Historic Resources of Statewide Significance. 8. The Commission shall advise and make policy recommendations to the (the City Council or Board of Commissioners) and the Planning Commission on matters relating to historic preservation; and shall make an annual report, in writing, to the (City Council or Board of Commissioners) on its activities and expenditures during the preceding twelve months, and its projected activities and expenditures for the following twelve months. Section VI - THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES 1. The Commission shall determine and periodically revise priorities for the identification and evaluation of historic resources. 2. Unless the Commission finds extraordinary historic importance, only properties over fifty years of age shall be considered for inclusion in the Inventory of Historic Resources. 3. The Commission shall develop or adopt a system, based on historic integrity and significance, for evaluating historic resources. The system shall rank surveyed historic resources as eligible, potentially eligible, or ineligible for listing on the Designated Landmarks Register. Owners of surveyed properties will be notified of these findings. 4. Documentation of properties in the Inventory of Historic Resources shall be on forms compatible with the Statewide Inventory of Historic Properties, and upon completion, copies of the forms shall be supplied to the State Historic Preservation Office. 5. Records concerning archaeological sites shall not be made available to the public. Section VII - THE DESIGNATED LANDMARKS REGISTER 1. Properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places, including all properties within National Register Historic District boundaries, are eligible for automatic listing on the Designated Landmarks Register. As Historic Resources of Statewide Significance, all such properties are subject to the regulations in Section VIII of this ordinance regardless of their listing on the Designated Landmarks Register, pursuant to Oregon Administrative Rule 660-023-200. However, only properties listed on the Designated Landmarks Register shall be eligible for public incentives and code considerations pursuant to this ordinance. 2. Any individual or group, including the Commission acting on its own initiative, may nominate a historic resource for inclusion on or removal from the Designated Landmarks Register by submitting a complete application to the (Planning Director or Commission). The burden of proof lies with the applicant. No property shall be so designated without the written consent of the owner or, in the case of multiple ownership, a majority of the owners. 3. The (Planning Director or Commission) shall establish standards for a complete application. Upon acceptance of a complete application the (Planning Director or Commission) shall schedule a public hearing pursuant to applicable state laws. 4. In order to be included or maintained on the Designated Landmarks Register the Commission must find that the historic resource is over fifty years of age or of extraordinary historic importance, and possesses sufficient historic integrity, and: a. is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local, state, or national history; or b. is associated with the lives of persons, or groups of people, significant in local, state, or national history; or c. embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type, style, period, or method of construction or that represents the work of a master, or that possesses high artistic values, or that represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or d. has yielded or is likely to yield information which is important in local, state, or national history. 5. The Commission shall develop findings to support its decisions. These findings shall indicate those elements of a property, including interior, landscape, and archaeological features, that are included in the designation and subject to regulation under the provisions of this ordinance. Section VIII - ALTERATIONS, RELOCATIONS, AND DEMOLITIONS 1. No exterior, interior, landscape, or archaeological element of a Designated Landmark which is specified as significant in its designation shall be altered, removed, or demolished without a permit issued pursuant to this ordinance. 2. No major exterior alteration, relocation, or demolition of a Historic Resource of Statewide Significance shall be allowed without a permit issued pursuant to this ordinance. 3. Prior to submitting an application for a permit pursuant to this section, proponents are encouraged to request a pre-application conference to review concepts and proposals. The (Planning Director or Commission) may form ad-hoc committees for this purpose. Commission members participating in pre-application conferences shall disclose their ex- parte contact at the time of a public hearing on the proposal. 4. The (Planning Director or Commission) shall establish standards for a complete application. Upon acceptance of a complete application the (Planning Director or Commission) shall schedule a public hearing pursuant to applicable state laws. 5. In cases requiring a public hearing, the Commission shall review and act upon applications for the alteration, relocation, or demolition of a Designated Landmark, or the major exterior alteration, relocation, or demolition of a Historic Resource of Statewide Significance. The burden of proof lies with the applicant. Applications may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied. (The City of ___, ___ County) shall include any conditions imposed by the Commission in permits issued pursuant to this section. 6. In order to approve an application for the alteration of a Designated Landmark or the major alteration of a Historic Resource of Statewide Significance, the Commission must find that the proposal meets the following standards: a. A property shall be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. b. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The relocation of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property shall be avoided. c. A property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, shall not be undertaken. d. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. e. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. f. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. g. Chemical and physical treatments, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. h. Archeological resources shall be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. i. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. j. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 7. In order to approve an application for the relocation or demolition of a Designated Landmark or Historic Resource of Statewide Significance, the Commission must find that: a. No prudent and feasible alternative exists, or b. The designated property is deteriorated beyond repair, or c. The value to the community of the proposed use of the property outweighs the value of retaining the Designated Landmark or Historic Resource of Statewide Significance. 8. At the hearing of an application to relocate or demolish a Designated Landmark or Historic Resource of Statewide Significance the Commission may, in the interest of exploring reasonable alternatives, delay issuance of a permit for up to 120 days from the date of the hearing. If, ten days prior to the expiration of the delay period the Commission finds that there are still reasonable alternatives to explore, it may apply to the (City Council or Board of Commissioners) for permission to continue the delay for an additional period of up to 120 days. 9. In approving an application for the demolition of a Designated Landmark or Historic Resource of Statewide Significance, the Commission may impose the following conditions: a. Photographic, video, or drawn recordation of the property to be demolished, and/or b. Salvage and curation of significant elements, and/or c. Other reasonable mitigation measures. 10. No provision of this ordinance shall be construed to prevent the ordinary repair or maintenance of a Designated Landmark or Historic Resource of Statewide Significance, when such action does not involve a change in design, materials, or appearance. 11. No provision in this ordinance shall be construed to prevent the alteration, demolition, or relocation of a Designated Landmark or Historic Resource of Statewide Significance, when the Building Official certifies that such action is required for the public safety. Section IX - PUBLIC INCENTIVES FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION (To be developed at the local level) Section X - APPEALS 1. Decisions of the Commission are appealable to (the City Council or Board of Commissioners) Decisions of (the City Council or Board of Commissioners) are appealable to the Land Use Board of Appeals. 2. Procedures for appeals to (the City Council or Board of Commissioners) shall be the same as those for appeals of Planning Commission decisions. Section XI - OTHER PROVISIONS 1. There is no fee for designation of a historic resource as a Designated Landmark. Fees for other applications shall be determined by (the City Council or Board of Commissioners) based on the cost of processing the application. 2. The provisions of this ordinance shall not effect any citation, complaint, prosecution, or other proceeding pending at the time this ordinance is passed. 3. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this ordinance be declared for any reason to be invalid, it is the intent of (the City Council or Board of Commissioners) that it would have passed all other portions of this ordinance independent of the elimination of any portion as may be declared invalid. Section XII - ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES Appendix 7B: OREGON STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM ANNOTATED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS – 2001 I. INTRODUCTION The Certified Local Government (CLG) program was established by the National Historic Preservation Act as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) in order to extend the existing historic preservation partnership between the federal and state governments to the local level. The model in place at the state level, with a professionally qualified board reviewing nominations, was adapted so that local review bodies would also consider proposals for designation, alteration, moving, demolition, etc. of landmarks. Other responsibilities, which the states have under statute and rule (e.g. to inventory historic and prehistoric cultural resources and to provide for adequate public participation), are extended to the local level through the certification program. In return, states are required to pass through a minimum of 10% of their federal Historic Preservation Fund grant to the Certified Local Governments. Just as the National Park Service periodically evaluates state programs, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is required to evaluate each CLG program every four years. Federal regulations, 36 CFR 61.6 and Chapter 9, Section L of the Historic Preservation Fund Grant Manual, outline federal requirements, and the State of Oregon Local Government Participation Procedures outline the SHPO's expectations. Evidence of serious inadequacies in CLG performance will trigger recommendations for corrective measures from the SHPO and will affect the Certified Local Government’s ability to obtain CLG funding. Failure to implement these corrective measures within 180 calendar days will result in the initiation of involuntary decertification procedures by the SHPO, pursuant to Chapter 9, Section M of the Historic Preservation Fund Grant Manual, and the State of Oregon Local Government Participation Procedures as amended. The following annotated standards clarify what is expected of CLGs by the state and federal partners and how programs will be evaluated. II. ANNOTATED STANDARDS A. "The Certified Local Government enforces preservation legislation and ordinances." There is a government-to-government relationship between the SHPO and the CLG. The SHPO expects elected officials and administrators of CLGs to support historic preservation programs with adequate funding, staff, and access, and ensure that ordinances and other legislation designed to protect historic and prehistoric cultural resources are enforced (qq.v., OAR 660-023-0200 & “State or Local Statute,” Historic Preservation Fund Grants Manual, Glossary–20). This relationship also means that in hearing appeals of controversial decisions, the elected body respects the expertise of its landmarks commission and gives due consideration to historic values in rendering its decision. B. "The Certified Local Government establishes and maintains an adequate and qualified landmarks commission." The CLG must seek the expertise necessary to make informed decisions about historic and prehistoric cultural resources. This is normally provided by a landmarks commission composed of professional and lay members; however, qualified staff members and/or consultants may be relied upon as needed. At a minimum, the CLG must make a reasonable effort to seat commissioners with a demonstrated positive interest in historic preservation, the majority of whom should meet the federal historic preservation professional standards (q.v., “Minimum Requirements for Certification,” Historic Preservation Fund Grants Manual, Chapter 9, (D)(2)). The CLG must provide the SHPO with the opportunity to comment on qualifications of candidates prior to their appointment. C. "The Certified Local Government designates local landmarks." This standard relates to the initial protection of local historic and prehistoric cultural resources (q.v., “State and Local Statute,” Historic Preservation Fund Grants Manual, Glossary-20). Cultural resources may include, but are not limited to: districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects. Designation, or denial of designation, must be based on clear and objective criteria embodied in the local ordinance and supported by written findings of fact. The CLG shall also have a written policy or ordinance provision that addresses the question of "owner consent" for local designation of landmark properties (qq.v., ORS 197.772 & LUBA No. 2000-160). Properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places must be protected as local landmarks under OAR 660-023-0200. D. "The Certified Local Government reviews proposals to alter local landmarks." This standard extends the protection afforded by landmark designation through the review of alteration proposals. The review process should be timely, straightforward, and not overly burdensome to proponents or opponents. The CLG is expected to provide its citizens and landmark commissioners with sufficient information and reference materials to make informed proposals and decisions, and apprise its building officials of the exceptions available to historic buildings under various codes and regulations. Proposed major alterations to properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places must be reviewed under OAR 660-023-0200. E. "The Certified Local Government reviews requests for demolition and removal of local landmarks." This standard ensures that proposals to demolish or remove landmarks are reviewed under local ordinance provisions, and where applicable that delay periods for consideration of alternatives are used. The CLG should actively seek alternatives to demolition or removal, and should require meaningful proof from proponents seeking to justify such proposals on economic or hardship grounds. If demolitions are allowed, recordation, curation of parts, salvage, or other mitigative measures should be required. Proposed demolitions or removals of properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places must be reviewed under OAR 660-023-0200. F. "The Certified Local Government seeks training opportunities for landmark commissioners." This standard ensures that landmark commission decisions are consistent and credible. Commissions often include individuals without formal historic preservation education or experience in conducting public hearings. It is expected that the CLG will provide or take advantage of educational opportunities for commissioners, especially relating to designation, alteration review, and conducting public hearings and meetings. G. "The Certified Local Government seeks to educate the public regarding historic preservation in the community." A public that understands its stake in the preservation of historic and prehistoric cultural resources is fundamental to a successful program. Public education may be accomplished in a number of ways. The CLG can hold workshops on appropriate preservation techniques for rehabilitating or restoring historic properties, sponsor National Historic Preservation Week activities, support or promote historic house tours, lectures or seminars, and other activities that educate its citizens on the importance of the community's past. The CLG can also encourage preservation education in the local school system. H. "The Certified Local Government maintains a system of survey and inventory that is consistent with the Statewide Inventory of Historic Properties." Although all current Oregon CLGs have inventories consistent with Statewide Inventory of Historic Properties standards, history is not static. Because additional historic properties reach eligibility with each passing year, a phased strategy of new surveys, and a uniform inventory maintenance program are encouraged. Existing Statewide Inventories and data generated through surveys are to be housed in a safe and secure location. I. "The Certified Local Government conducts meetings in conformance with State of Oregon public meeting statutes." Decisions affecting historic resources are less vulnerable to challenge and overturn when they are made within the parameters of ORS 192.610-ORS192.690. To avoid any potential liability for conflict of interest, CLGs must include provisions in their written procedures that meet NPS requirements (Historic Preservation Fund Grants Manual, Chapter 3, C(1)(2)). J. "The Certified Local Government reviews and comments on National Register nominations." CLG participation is a key component in the National Register nomination process, and commissions are expected to review and comment on all National Register nominations forwarded from their jurisdictions. Comments must be made with benefit of appropriate professional expertise, either from or obtained by the commission. Nominations prepared or overseen by the CLG, particularly those for historic districts, require a higher degree of direct participation in the National Register process, including responsibility for notification, presentation, editing or other technical corrections. K. "The Certified Local Government administers subgrants in accordance with established procedures." CLGs are expected to follow administrative procedures outlined in the SHPO Grant Administration Manual. The Grants Coordinator evaluates performance in terms of timeliness, adherence to contract provisions, fiscal responsibility, and final products. Appendix #8: Statistics Reports Ashland Historic Districts Historic Building Report/Counts Page 1 of 29/11/2008 (All Properties Inventoried) Evaluation Counts - Skidmore Academy Historic District Evaluation Quantity % of Total 1 14%eligible/significant 6 86%undetermined Total: 7 Decade Quantity Construction Date Decade Counts - Skidmore Academy Historic District % of Total 11870s 14% 11890s 14% 11900s 14% 31910s 43% 11920s 14% Total: 7 Material Counts - Skidmore Academy Historic District Materials Quantity % of Total 1 14%STUCCO 1 14%SYNTHETIC SIDING 1 14%Undefined 4 57%WOOD Total: 7 Original Use Counts - Skidmore Academy Historic District Original Use Quantity % of Total DOMESTIC 6 86% OTHER 1 14% Total: 7 Historic Building Report/Counts Page 2 of 29/11/2008 (All Properties Inventoried) Style Category Counts - Skidmore Academy Historic District Style Categories Quantity % of Total MID-19TH CENT. & LATE VICTORIAN Queen Anne 1 1 14% Category Total: LATE 19TH/EARLY 20TH CENT. AMER. MOVEMENTS Arts & Crafts / Craftsman 1 Bungalow (Gen.) 3 4 57% Category Total: LATE 19TH & 20TH CENT. PERIOD REVIVALS Norman Farmhouse 1 1 14% Category Total: Unrecorded Unrecorded 1 1 14% Category Total: 7Total: Historic Building Report/Counts Page 1 of 29/11/2008 (All Properties Inventoried) Evaluation Counts - Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic District Evaluation Quantity % of Total 199 79%eligible/contributing 9 4%eligible/significant 44 17%not eligible/non-contributing Total: 252 Decade Quantity Construction Date Decade Counts - Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic District % of Total 2 Unrecorded 1% 201880s 8% 141890s 6% 1181900s 47% 411910s 16% 251920s 10% 171930s 7% 91940s 4% 11950s 0% 11970s 0% 21980s 1% 21990s 1% Total: 252 Material Counts - Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic District Materials Quantity % of Total 2 1%BRICK 4 2%CONCRETE 9 4%METAL 7 3%STUCCO 22 9%SYNTHETIC SIDING 208 83%WOOD Total: 252 Original Use Counts - Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic District Original Use Quantity % of Total DOMESTIC 251 100% OTHER 1 0% Total: 252 Historic Building Report/Counts Page 2 of 29/11/2008 (All Properties Inventoried) Style Category Counts - Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic District Style Categories Quantity % of Total OTHER Other / Undefined 7 Vernacular 43 50 20% Category Total: MODERN PERIOD Minimal Traditional 5 Ranch Style 1 6 2% Category Total: MID-19TH CENT. & LATE VICTORIAN Gothic Revival 12 Italianate 5 Queen Anne 48 Shingle Style 1 66 26% Category Total: LATE 19TH/EARLY 20TH CENT. AMER. MOVEMENTS Arts & Crafts / Craftsman 11 Bungalow (Gen.) 111 122 48% Category Total: LATE 19TH & 20TH CENT. PERIOD REVIVALS Colonial Revival 5 Mediterranean Revival 1 Norman Farmhouse 1 Tudor 1 8 3% Category Total: 252Total: Historic Building Report/Counts Page 1 of 29/11/2008 (All Properties Inventoried) Evaluation Counts - Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District Evaluation Quantity % of Total 260 70%eligible/contributing 4 1%eligible/significant 106 29%not eligible/non-contributing Total: 370 Decade Quantity Construction Date Decade Counts - Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District % of Total 3 Unrecorded 1% 311880s 8% 441890s 12% 1201900s 32% 321910s 9% 151920s 4% 31930s 1% 381940s 10% 171950s 5% 181960s 5% 171970s 5% 111980s 3% 211990s 6% Total: 370 Material Counts - Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District Materials Quantity % of Total 3 1%BRICK 5 1%CONCRETE 5 1%METAL 1 0%STONE 4 1%STUCCO 22 6%SYNTHETIC SIDING 118 32%Undefined 4 1%UNKNOWN 208 56%WOOD Total: 370 Original Use Counts - Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District Original Use Quantity % of Total COMMERCE / TRADE 40 11% DEFENSE 1 0% DOMESTIC 310 84% EDUCATION 1 0% GOVERNMENT 5 1% HEALTH CARE 1 0% INDUSTRY/PROCESSING/EXTRACTION 2 1% LANDSCAPE 1 0% OTHER 1 0% RECREATION & CULTURE 1 0% RELIGION 6 2% UNKNOWN 1 0% Total: 370 Historic Building Report/Counts Page 2 of 29/11/2008 (All Properties Inventoried) Style Category Counts - Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District Style Categories Quantity % of Total OTHER Other / Undefined 14 Vernacular 104 118 32% Category Total: MODERN PERIOD Minimal Traditional 3 3 1% Category Total: MID-19TH CENT. & LATE VICTORIAN Gothic Revival 8 Italianate 9 Queen Anne 36 Stick 3 56 15% Category Total: LATE 19TH/EARLY 20TH CENT. AMER. MOVEMENTS Arts & Crafts / Craftsman 20 Bungalow (Gen.) 48 Commercial 2 70 19% Category Total: LATE 19TH & 20TH CENT. PERIOD REVIVALS Colonial Revival 2 English Cottage 1 Mission 1 Norman Farmhouse 1 5 1% Category Total: CLASSICAL CLASSICAL: other 1 1 0% Category Total: Unrecorded Unrecorded 117 117 32% Category Total: 370Total: Historic Building Report/Counts Page 1 of 29/11/2008 (All Properties Inventoried) Evaluation Counts - Ashland Downtown Historic District Evaluation Quantity % of Total 58 66%eligible/contributing 5 6%eligible/significant 25 28%not eligible/non-contributing Total: 88 Decade Quantity Construction Date Decade Counts - Ashland Downtown Historic District % of Total 3 Unrecorded 3% 41870s 5% 81880s 9% 51890s 6% 181900s 20% 151910s 17% 71920s 8% 41930s 5% 61940s 7% 31950s 3% 51960s 6% 51970s 6% 11980s 1% 41990s 5% Total: 88 Material Counts - Ashland Downtown Historic District Materials Quantity % of Total 10 11%BRICK 23 26%CONCRETE 1 1%METAL 20 23%STUCCO 26 30%Undefined 8 9%WOOD Total: 88 Original Use Counts - Ashland Downtown Historic District Original Use Quantity % of Total COMMERCE / TRADE 60 68% DOMESTIC 8 9% FUNERARY 1 1% GOVERNMENT 2 2% HEALTH CARE 1 1% INDUSTRY/PROCESSING/EXTRACTION 2 2% LANDSCAPE 1 1% OTHER 1 1% RECREATION & CULTURE 2 2% RELIGION 2 2% SOCIAL 3 3% TRANSPORTATION 4 5% UNKNOWN 1 1% Total: 88 Historic Building Report/Counts Page 2 of 29/11/2008 (All Properties Inventoried) Style Category Counts - Ashland Downtown Historic District Style Categories Quantity % of Total OTHER Not Applicable 3 Other / Undefined 26 Vernacular 1 30 34% Category Total: MODERN PERIOD Art Deco 1 1 1% Category Total: MID-19TH CENT. & LATE VICTORIAN Gothic Revival 1 Italianate 5 Queen Anne 1 Stick 1 8 9% Category Total: LATE 19TH/EARLY 20TH CENT. AMER. MOVEMENTS Arts & Crafts / Craftsman 1 Chicago School 2 Commercial 12 15 17% Category Total: LATE 19TH & 20TH CENT. PERIOD REVIVALS Beaux Arts 4 Colonial Revival 1 Mission 3 8 9% Category Total: Unrecorded Unrecorded 26 26 30% Category Total: 88Total: Appendix #9: Oregon Cities Preservation Incentives Astoria – Rosemary Johnson, Planner 1. 2007-2008 CLG funded Residential Renovation Grants for primary facades (up to 50% of cost or $3,000 max) 2. 2008-2009 CLG funded Commercial Renovation Grants for primary facades (up to 50% of cost or $3,000 max) 3. 2008-2009 CLG funded free consultation for one hour with a professional architect or building designer to assist with exterior design alterations/restorations. 4. Adopt the Existing Building Code as an addendum to the International Building Code. Allows more flexibility with codes for older buildings. 5. Yearly awards for exceptional exterior restorations for residential, commercial, government, and institutional properties. 6. We provide research material such as historic photos of buildings and reference materials for property owners. Benton County – Chris Bentley, Associate Planner With mostly rural resources, they have a low interest loan program and a fund of about $3K annually from their CLG grant that they manage as a grant to locally listed properties. (A copy of the forms they use are available if desired.) Clackamas County – Pam Hayden Clackamas County gives “Stewardship Excellence Awards” annually during Historic Preservation Month. This year they gave 8 to property owners who were stewards of properties on the National Register plus nominated tree/s on their property as Heritage Trees. This was the first year of their Heritage Tree program. They also give free plaques for Historic Landmark homes and free plaques to Heritage Tree owners. The County used to have low interest loans but they were too cumbersome and homeowners didn’t want to bother. Corvallis – Bob Richardson, Associate Planner Historic Preservation Permit applications are free, and they do their best to educate owners of historic properties about the review process so it is not daunting to them. Eugene – Ken Guzowski Eugene established a Historic Preservation Program in 1978 where they set up a revolving loan fund that allows the City to lend up to $20,000 for approved work if it is a City Landmark or listed in the National Register. They also utilize a H-Historic zoning that allows CL & NR properties to rezone to H in order to allow appropriate uses that might not be allowed in the existing base zone. This program has been very successful. For example, it allows residential buildings on major arterials to obtain a commercial or office use which might not have been allowed. Residents are able to obtain building code modifications from the Building Official and they utilize these requests sparingly as they can't make a request if it is a matter of fire and life safety. Porch rail height waivers are common, as well as waiver of parking requirements. Independence – Shawn Irvine, Community Development Technician Facade grant program for the downtown commercial area, funded by their Urban Renewal District. (Guidelines available for example if desired.) Jacksonville – Scott Clay, City Planner The City has historic preservation grants for small scale projects. They are also starting a loan program soon for historic preservation projects. Lake Oswego – Paige Goganian, Associate Planner The City waives fees for historic review, and recognizes owners of landmarks during Preservation Month (May) with a public presentation of landmark plaques and a preservation merit award by the Mayor. Medford – Suzanne Meyers, Medford Historic Commission Allows staff level review for paint and roofing changes to make the process quicker for home owners. The City has sign guidelines that allow “legacy signs” to remain on structures, even if the signs don’t meet current standards. Oregon City – Christina Robertson-Gardiner, Associate Planner The City is just starting a Historic matching grant program this year modeled after the Forest Grove program. (A draft of the application is available if desired.) The breakdown of the money is as follows: $10,000 from Oregon city community Development $10,000 from Metro Enhancement Grants (tipping fees from our transfer station) $7,900 from CLG grant Roseburg – Dick J. Dolgonas Mailed a letter to everyone in their historic districts letting them know they are in a historic district, telling them what that means and that the city had information about their building. At least one of their three districts has people with limited incomes, so Community Development funds have been used for individual home rehabilitation projects. West Linn – Tom Soppe, Associate Planner The City recently eliminated the pre-application conference requirement for historic residential remodels and additions. Only a free informal staff conference is now required. Oregon Cities/Counties Offering Reduced Permit Fees Benton County – Chris Bentley, Senior Planner County does not offer reduced permit fees for building permits. They are prevented by building code from doing this. If they did offer reduced fees, someone else would need to pick them up. They do not charge for the planning fees to place a property on the local Historic Register, which is one incentive. Clackamas County – Linda Preisz County does not offer any reduced fees for building permits. However, they do not charge a land use fee for applying and receiving landmark designation. Corvallis – Bob Richardson, Associate Planner All historic preservation permits are free. However, fees are charged for other associated building permits or land use permits. Eugene – Ken Guzowski Eugene does not offer reduced building permit fees for historic properties. However, they do not assign a fee for historic alteration review or City Historic Landmark applications. West Linn – Tom Soppe, Associate Planner City does not offer reduced fees on building permits. They have major and minor remodel permits through the planning department and historic new construction permits through the planning department. Building permits come after that. Residential minor remodels are free, and they try to err on the side of calling things “minor” to help applicants