Governor Brown is requiring masks to be worn in public indoor and outdoor settings statewide to help stop the spread of the Delta variant. The Governor is also encouraging everyone to get vaccinated. Find out how to get vaccinated locally at Jackson County Health and Human Services website

Agendas and Minutes

Historic Commission (View All)

Historic Commission Regular Meeting Minutes

Wednesday, February 07, 2007



February 7, 2007


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


Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Tom Giordano, Alex Krach, Terry Skibby, Henry Baker, Keith Swink, Sam Whitford, Rob Saladoff,
Absent  Commission Members:

Council Liaison: Eric Navickas, not present

High School Liaison: None Appointed
SOU Liaison: None Appointed
Staff Present: Maria Harris, Senior Planner




At 7:05 pm, Chairman Dale Shostrom called the Historic Commission meeting to order. 





Mr. Whitford made a motion to approve the minutes and it was seconded by Mr. Swink. The motion passed unanimously by the commissioners present. 


PUBLIC FORUM:  No speakers






Planning Action 2007-00090

630 Siskiyou Blvd.

Conditional Use Permit to operate a two-unit Travelers Accommodation

Applicant: Bruce & Trudy Duncan


Chairman Shostrom read the description of the proposed project and confirmed there were no conflict of interest or exparte contacts. 


Ms. Harris explained the applicant wanted to use the existing historic home as a single guest unit with an existing apartment over the garage at the rear of the site to serve as the owner’s quarters.  No changes are proposed to the site or existing buildings.  Staff has included a recommendation in the Findings for the owner’s to obtain a sign permit which shall be reviewed by the Historic Commission prior to installation of a sign.


Jennifer Sallee, 443 Clinton St, representing her parents, Bruce and Trudy Duncan, explained their plan.


There being no one in the audience wishing to speak, Chairman Shostrom closed the public meeting.


Mr. Skibby said the B & B’s generally were good at preserving historic structures and he supported the use.


With a motion by Mr. Baker and a second by Mr. Giordano, the Historic Commission unanimously recommended approval of the planning action for a Conditional Use Permit.



Chairman Shostrom recommended that since Mr. Giordano needed to recuse himself due to a conflict of interest with the North Main Street and Glenn Street project and there were no applicants or people in the audience wishing to speak on the project, that they move this action to the end of the agenda.  There was agreement of all the Commissioners.





A.      Review Board


February 8th

Terry, Keith, Rob

February 15th

Terry, Sam, Tom

February 22nd

Terry, Henry, Dale

March 1st

Terry, Tom, Alex

March 8th

Terry, Keith, Rob




PA #2000-120

485 “A” Street (Steve Hoxmeier)


PA #2004-102

832 “A” Street (Ilene Rubenstein)


PA #2004-138

234 Vista St (Sid & Karen DeBoer)



685 A Street (William Reeves)



820 “C” Street (Randy & Helen Ellison)



11 First Street (Ron Yamaoka)



145 East Main St (Urban Development Services/SERA Arch)



125 Sherman Street (Russ Dale)



247 Third Street (Marc Valens & Anne Golden)



160 Nob Hill (ARU-Dan Heller & Don Sever)



175 North Main (First Methodist Church Remodel)



520 Fairview Street (Stewart Ward-Porch)



A Street between 5th & 6th Streets (Tax Lot 6507 – Jerry Kenefick)



160 Helman (Siskiyou LLC & James Batzer-Commercial Buildings)



144 Second Street (Mary Nelke – Addition for Travelers Accom)



25 North Main Street (Allan Sandler – Masonic 3rd Story Addn)




C.  National Historic Preservation Week 2007 – “Preservation Works!” – The Commissioners reviewed a spreadsheet of potential nominations, eliminating ineligible projects and dividing the remaining list up between themselves to research and take pictures.


D.  Lithia Springs National Register Nomination – No report


E.  Single Family Residential Design Standards – No report


F.   Co-Sponsorship with Conservation Commission for Fall Workshop – No report


DISCUSSION ITEMS – Street Lamp Pole Standards – Handouts provided.  No further discussion.







A.      Library Closure - Mr. Skibby expressed his concerns about losing valuable historical materials and collections if the library is closed.  Mr. Whitford suggested the Historic Commission write a letter to the Mayor and City Council supporting keeping the library open for historic resources and for commissions.  Mr. Krach said he would draft up a letter.


Mr. Skibby made a motion to authorize Mr. Krach to draft a letter to the Mayor and City Council as described. Mr. Whitford seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously.


B.     Open House & Reception – Mr. Whitford and Mr. Skibby agreed to staff the Historic Commission table at the Open House.  Mr. Skibby said he would bring some historic photos.  Staff will supply a copy of the Historic Districts map.  It was also recommended that the nomination binders and last year’s Historic Preservation award winner’s picture be brought.

C.     Reconnaissance Survey – Ms. Harris updated the Commissioners on the project and said she would have a map prepared for the next meeting.



PUBLIC HEARING (continued)


Planning Action 2006-02354

North Main Street and Glenn Street

Site Review, Variance and Exception to the Street Standards for new Office Building

Raymond J. Kistler Architecture


Chairman Shostrom read the description of the project and asked if there were any conflicts of interest.  Mr. Giordano said he had a conflict of interest because he had worked on the project and recused himself and left the meeting.  There were no other conflicts of interest or ex parte communication.


Ms. Harris presented the applicant’s plan and alternative plan.  The Commissioners discussed the front yard setback issue of ten feet versus twenty feet with respect to the existing grid of historic development.  Mr. Baker raised the concern of the feeling of safety for the pedestrian walking along this busy street.  Mr. Krach believes the closeness of the buildings to the sidewalk in the downtown core slows down traffic making it feel safer for the pedestrians.  Mr. Saladoff felt the proportions of the alternate design were off and felt the variance for the 10-foot setback would be appropriate.  Mr. Swink and Mr. Whitford agreed.


Chairman Shostrom said the angled corner creates asymmetry on the front façade.  Mr. Saladoff suggested clipping both corners to regain the symmetry. Chairman Shostrom also questioned the proportions of the awnings.  Most felt the awnings contributed to the cascading effect desired to break up the façade.


Mr. Skibby made a motion to recommend approval to Planning Commission as follows:


Recommend approval of the revised proposal (i.e. at the ten-foot front yard setback) with the condition that the plans with architectural details are submitted for review of the full Historic Commission prior to submission of the building permit application.  Architectural details to include balcony railing detail, window/door sill/jamb details, wall section, awning and knee brace details, storefront brake metal system details, and final material and color palette.  Specific recommendations are following.




·         West and East Sides of N. Main St.

The west and east sides of N. Main St. have different historic characters.  The West side has larger, statelier residences, setback further from the street.  The east side is predominately commercial and the reduced front yard setback from N. Main St. is historically more appropriate for pedestrian commercial interaction.


·         Historic District Setback Standard  IV-C-4)

Maintain the historic façade lines of streetscapes by locating front walls of new buildings in the same plans as the facades of adjacent buildings.  Avoid violating the exiting setback pattern by placing new buildings in front or behind the historic façade line.


Proposed ten-foot setback from N. Main St. matches façade lines in the vicinity.  The average historic front façade lines in the area are approximately ten feet.



Revised Proposal at Ten-foot Setback


·         Strongly recommend a 45 degree angle on both ground floor corners to maintain symmetry.


·         Awnings on three elevations are a positive addition to overall design.  Concerned about the length and projection of the knee braces.


·         Support material samples shown at meeting – Moss Stucco, Vintage III Zincalume roofing and Mountain Brown split-faced CMU.  Stucco should be smooth sand finish.  Do not support zinc aluminum roofing discussed in original proposal because bright, shiny color is not compatible with surrounding historic materials.


·         The Historic Commission finds the revised proposal to meet the ten Historic District Design Standards in the Site Design and Use Standards as follows.


IV-C-1)  Height

At an average height of 28.5 feet to the gable ridge, the proposed building is similar to structures surrounding the subject property.  The building across the street is 1.5 stories and the condominiums behind the site are similar two-story structures.


IV-C-2) Scale and IV-C-3)  Massing

The building is broken into two modules which creates a residential scale and reduces the mass.  The mass of the rear elevation is broken up by the recess in the middle of the building.


IV-C-4)  Setback

See comment above.


IV-C-5)  Roof Shapes

The steep pitched gable roofs match the surrounding historic buildings.


IV-C-6)  Rhythm of Openings

The windows have been changed from original proposal to a more vertical orientation which is compatible with the surrounding historic structures.


IV-C-7)  Platforms

The base of the building is differentiated with by material (split-faced block in Charcoal Black).




IV-C-8)  Directional Expression

Two street facing volumes directed towards N. Main St. matches the orientation to N. Main St. of buildings in the area.  This provides texture rather than being monolithic.


IV-C-9)  Sense of Entry

The ground floor front doors are located in a generously-sized entry alcove which is connected by a plaza and walkway area to the public sidewalk on N. Main St.


IV-C-10)  Imitations

The building is clearly not replicating the style of an older period.


In summary, the proposed building design manages to address the Historic District Design Standards while accomplishing a contemporary interpretation with different materials and architectural details.


Alternative Design at 20-foot Setback


The Historic Commission recommends denial of the alternative design.


·         The design is not complete.


·         The vastly different building proportions (wider than deep) create a change in bulk, mass and scale that results in a loss of the store front character and too much of a residential feel. 


·         The historic proportion is having a building that is narrow and long – this building design is the opposite.  If you look at the site plan with the increased front yard setback, it looks like an improperly site building because it is wide and too shallow.


·         If the Planning Commission enforces the 20-foot front yard setback, the Historic Commission recommends continuation to review the new design for mass, scale, proportions, materials and details in relation to the applicable Site Design and Use Standards.


Mr. Baker seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously.






The next Historic Commission meeting will be on May 2, 2007 at 7:00 pm in the Siskiyou Room.




With a motion by Chairman Shostrom and a second by Mr. Whitford, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 10:55 p.m.

Online City Services

Customer Central Online Payment Center
Connect to
Ashland Fiber Network
Request Conservation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Building Permit
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2021 City of Ashland, OR | Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A




twitter facebook Email Share
back to top