Jackson County is in the High Risk category for COVID-19 as of February 26. Visit the Governor's website for information on what is allowed during this time. Get general updates, vaccine information, and resources related to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic here.
 

Agendas and Minutes

Historic Commission (View All)

Historic Commission Regular Meeting Minutes

Agenda
Wednesday, January 03, 2007

ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION

Minutes

January 3, 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: Alice Hardesty, absent

High School Liaison: None Appointed
SOU Liaison: None Appointed
Staff Present: David Stalheim, Planning Director, Maria Harris, Senior Planner; Billie Boswell, Administration

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

At 7:08 pm, Chairman Dale Shostrom called the Historic Commission meeting to order. 

 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

Mr. Krach made a motion to approve the minutes and it was seconded by Mr. Whitford. The motion passed unanimously by the commissioners present.  Mr. Giordano abstained as he was absent from the meeting.

 

PUBLIC FORUM:  No speakers

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

  1. ASHLAND CITY HALL REMODEL, 20 East Main Street.  Mike Morrison, Jr. and Dale Peters reviewed with the Commissioners the plan to close off the front door to City Hall closest to the corner for security concerns.  The plan would remove the front door, leaving the lintel detail and extending the planter to the building corner.  The exterior would be finished with stucco to match the existing colors and materials.  Mr. Skibby asked if anything was proposed for the exterior staircase on the Plaza side of the building.  Mr. Morrison stated that no changes were being proposed other than possibly an “Employees Only” sign. Chairman Shostrom asked if the door closest to the corner could remain locked.  Mr. Peters said the Fire Department would not allow that option.  Mr. Skibby said he couldn’t support the proposal because the change to the historic character of the building would be too great.  Mr. Swink suggested they restore the angled corner entrance as it was in 1913 except putting a window in where the door was shown.  This way the doorway would be more historically correct and could be easily restored.  The majority of the Commissioners agreed this would be the best plan.  Mr. Morrison and Mr. Peters said they would present that option to City Administration for approval.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

 

Planning Action 2006-01999

25 North Main Street

Conditional Use Permit and Site Review

Applicant: Ashland Holdings LP/Allan Sandler

 

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

 

Ms. Harris introduced David Stalheim, the new Planning Director.

 

Ms. Harris explained the applicant had made significant changes to the proposal, addressing the Commission’s concerns regarding bulk and scale and providing more design details.  Chairman Shostrom asked about the reference in the staff report to the window orientation.  Ms. Harris said the design standards called out a “vertical” orientation.

 

Mark McKechnie, architect, reviewed all the changes that were made including raising the parapet to meet code, a railing added to the rear parapet to match the railing below.  He also described the materials and finishes.

Mr. Giordano suggested the center bar in the windows be raised up.  Mr. Sandler said they could also elongate the windows to address the vertical orientation issue.  Chairman Shostrom did not feel the bead-board exterior siding on the parapet was appropriate and suggested it be changed to stucco to match the rest of the exterior finish.  Bead-board was acceptable on the interior portion of the space.

 

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

 

The Commissioners liked the changes that had been made to the plan and felt it protected the historic design of the original building.

 

With a motion by Chairman Shostrom and a second by Mr. Skibby, the Historic Commission unanimously recommended approval of the planning action for Site Review and a Conditional Use Permit with the following recommendations:

 

  1. Change the rear parapet material from bead-board to a stucco finish, showing control joint patterns.
  2. Provide brick and stucco color samples to full Historic Commission prior to issuance of the building permit.

 

Planning Action 2006-02350

180 Meade Street

Site Review and Conditional Use Permit for ARU

Jane & Bill Street

 

Since the applicants were not present and no one in the audience wished to speak on this project, Chairman Shostrom suggested this action be heard after Planning Action #2006-02354.  The other Commissioners agreed.

 

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.

 

Staff handed out additional copies of plans (pages 3.2, 7.1 & 7.2) that had inadvertently been left out of the packet.  Copies of the Pre-Application recommendations were also distributed as requested by Chairman Shostrom.

 

Ms. Harris reviewed the Staff Report with the Commissioners.  She stated the variance to the front setback of 20 feet to 10 feet seemed reasonable because of other neighboring setbacks.  However, there was concern that a signal planned for Wimer and North Main could require additional right-of-way for turning lanes.  She was unsure whether the State would allow a 10 foot setback.  Ms. Harris said staff also was concerned about the large mass of the roof and large box look on the Glen Street side with nothing to break it up.  The plans did not detail the colors of the exterior materials.

 

There being no further questions of staff, Raymond Kistler, owner and architect, reviewed the changes he had made to the design as a result of the preliminary review with the Historic Commission several months before.  He stated that it was confusing to determine if the Historic Commission wanted the design to look more commercial/industrial or residential in nature in order to be compatible with the mixed uses in the neighborhood.

Mr. Skibby pointed out that the plans show a significant decrease in the size and number of windows resulting in more mass and bulk on the rear and side elevations.  Mr. Kistler said this change was to comply with building codes.  There was discussion on various options to breakup the flat box look of the sides and rear and large roof mass as seen from the front.  Chairman Shostrom and Mr. Whitford expressed concern over the support braces on the front elevation not being compatible.  Mr. Swink felt there was too much unpainted galvanized metal on the roof and exterior walls.  Suggestions were made to painting or use of alternative materials.

 

Chairman Shostrom made a motion, seconded by Mr. Swink, to recommend the application be continued because the Historic Commission has concerns with the proposal meeting the Historic District Design Standards of the Site Design and Use Standards for Massing (IV-C-3), Roof Shapes (IV-C-5) and Rhythm of Openings (IV-C-6).  Also, the Commission has concerns with regard to the compatibility of exterior materials with the surrounding area.  Specific recommendations are following.

 

  • The applicant has done an excellent job embracing the residential and architectural elements in the surrounding area.
  • The Variance for the ten-foot setback seems reasonable given the setbacks of adjacent properties.  The benefit of the proposal is the symmetrical placement of the proposed building in relation to the existing front setback line.
  • Exterior materials and colors need to be less contrasting to be compatible with surrounding architecture.  Concerned about color and shine of zinc roofing and galvanized metal siding.
  • Side and rear elevations are monolithic.  The base may need more relief.  Bring architectural elements from the front elevation to the rear of the building in the form of recesses, bays, trellises, planters and/or awnings.
  • Diagonal steel bracing may be too industrial for area.  The color of the diagonal steel bracing is important.  Consider bringing diagonal elements to the side and rear elevations.  When the diagonal element is on the front alone it is too isolated and it stands out.
  • Need wall and window sections.
  • Use larger windows on north elevations similar to those shown in August 3, 2006 pre-application plan.
  • Lower saddle between two gable roofs to reduce mass of building.

 

The motion carried unanimously.

 

The Historic Commissioners discussed the applicant’s concerns regarding the Commission’s generally positive review at the Pre-Application stage versus the more detailed review of the revised plans submitted for this review.  Although the applicant said there were few changes made, it was the consensus of the Commissioners that the changes were significant and much more detailed regarding materials than those presented at the pre-application review.

 

Planning Action 2006-02350

180 Meade Street

Site Review and Conditional Use Permit for ARU

Jane & Bill Street

 

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

 

Ms. Harris explained that the 500 square foot building under consideration for the Accessory Residential Unit is existing and no changes are proposed for the exterior.

 

The applicant was not present.  There was no one in the audience wishing to speak.

 

Mr. Whitford made a motion to recommend approval and it was seconded by Mr. Baker.  The motion passed unanimously.

 

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

A.      Review Board – An Email from Mollie Owens-Stevenson stating she was resigning her position with the Historic Commission due to personal obligations was shared with the Commissioners.  The following is the month’s schedule for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department:

 

January 4th

Terry, Keith, Tom

January 11th

Terry, Henry, Dale

January 18th

Terry, Alex, Dale

January 25th

Terry, Tom, Sam

February 1st

Terry, Sam, Tom

February 8th

Terry, Keith, Rob

 

B.     PROJECT ASSIGNMENTS FOR PLANNING ACTIONS   

PA #2000-120

485 “A” Street (Steve Hoxmeier)

Shostrom

PA #2004-102

832 “A” Street (Ilene Rubenstein)

Saladoff

PA #2004-138

234 Vista St (Sid & Karen DeBoer)

Saladoff

PA #2004-154

180 Lithia Way (Archerd & Dresner)       FINALLED – REMOVE?

Krach

PA-#2004-160

685 A Street (William Reeves)

Swink

PL#2005-01226

820 “C” Street (Randy & Helen Ellison)

Shostrom

PL#2005-01674

11 First Street (Ron Yamaoka)

Skibby

PL#2005-02105

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

Giordano/Baker

PL#2005-01307

125 Sherman Street (Russ Dale)

Shostrom

PL#2006-00057

247 Third Street (Marc Valens & Anne Golden)

Saladoff

PA#2006-00441

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

Whitford

PA#2006-00453

175 North Main (First Methodist Church Remodel)

Swink

PA#2006-00875

520 Fairview Street (Stewart Ward-Porch)

Swink

PA#2006-00877

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

Krach

PA#2006-00612

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

Shostrom/Giordano

PA#2006-01959

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

Whitford

PA#2006-01999

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

Krach

 

 

C.  Letter to Ashland School District regarding Bellview School - Mr. Krach reviewed the draft letter and the consensus was approval to send it to the Ashland School District as written.

 

D.  National Historic Preservation Week 2007 – “Preservation Works!” – Decision was made to host this year’s Preservation Week May 13th – 19th.   Ms. Boswell said the nomination form would be placed in the City Newsletter to be sent with the February utility bills.

 

E.  Lithia Springs National Register Nomination – No report

 

F.   Single Family Residential Design Standards – No report

 

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

 

DISCUSSION ITEMS - None

 

NEW BUSINESS – None

 

COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA - Mr. Krach asked if a follow-up letter should be sent to Paula Brown in Public Works regarding consistency in the street light design standards.  Ms. Harris explained that the Electric Department has two standards which the City currently uses but there are some old designs still in operation.  The Parks Department handles the installation and maintenance of all lights within the City’s parks.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

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 10:20 p.m.

Online City Services

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

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

Quicklinks

Connect

Share

twitter facebook Email Share
back to top