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)

Regular Monthly Meeting

Wednesday, January 03, 2001

January 3, 2001



At 7:38 p.m., Chairperson Terry Skibby called the meeting to order at the Community Center. Members present were Terry Skibby, Dale Shostrom, Kay Maser, Gary Foll, Jay Leighton, Bob Meiser, Vava Bailey and Joan Steele. Also present were Associate Planner Mark Knox, Secretary Sonja Akerman and Council Liaison Cameron Hanson. Member Keith Chambers was unable to attend the meeting.


For the record, Skibby stated he would like to clarify on page 5 of the December 6, 2000 minutes, that he realizes there are other forms of transportation on Siskiyou Boulevard other than pedestrian. Leighton moved and Bailey seconded to approve the minutes of the December 6, 2000 meeting as submitted. The motion was unanimously passed.


Planning Action 2000-120
Site Review
485 "A" Street
Steve Hoxmeier

Knox reported this application is to construct an addition onto an existing commercial building. He explained the history of this property from 1993, when the applicant first applied for a "temporary" 800 square foot office/storage/shop building. The project evolved over the next few years to a 1,100 square foot commercial building that was constructed in 1996. This application is for phase 2, which consists of a two-story addition. Parking will be in the rear, with ingress and egress off "A" Street. Hoxmeier has talked with Staff and the Review Board regarding design issues, and Knox said this application is basically the second of three phases for this development.

Staff concerns include: 1) the unbalanced appearance of the roof line and dormer on the south elevation (staff recommends roof line be continued and not stop at dormer); 2) the use of brick as a portion of the base and inconsistency in height of brick (staff recommends either use consistent height or drop brick altogether because it does not relate to existing building and is not appropriate for this type of building); 3) use of brick for detailing, especially with the arches above some of the windows (staff recommends eliminating brick detail because it is not compatible with existing structure); and 4) details of siding, window trim, roof material, etc. were not submitted (staff recommends these details be submitted prior to next month's meeting). Overall, Staff is pleased with the layout of the project, and feels the volume of the addition would work well with the recommended changes.

Skibby asked how phase 3 would tie in with the commercial style of the building. Knox responded initial discussion about the addition began about three years ago. Since then, the applicant has tried to incorporate concerns of the Historic Commission and staff with what he is proposing. Knox noted a good thing about this design is that it will allow any type of building design on the adjacent lot in the future. Hoxmeier envisions a courtyard on the "A" Street side; however, Staff would like to see the commercial building be built up to the sidewalk. This application would still allow it to happen in the future.

Leighton asked for an explanation of the "temporary" building that was first requested. Knox said the applicant received approval from the Planning Commission in 1993 with the stipulation it be reviewed every year in order to monitor changes in the Land Use Ordinance. The Building Division, however, would not approve such a building.

Steele said she is a little uncomfortable with approving this submitted design without knowing what the next phase would entail. Knox said that is why clarification is being requested, but the Commission would need to remember this application only consists of the second phase and should not be influenced by phase 3.

Shostrom questioned why the existing driveway narrows from 10 feet to 8 feet. Knox answered that it allows a porch to be built on the addition. He also said 8 feet for the driveway still works; however, emergency vehicles won't be able to use it.

Owner/applicant Steve Hoxmeier apologized for not having submitted more detailed drawings. He stated this addition would match the existing building. Phase 3 will change the structure to be more of a commercial block type building with stone, brick and arches. He clarified the roofline for phase 2 was drawn to eventually tie in to the addition for phase 3. Meiser asked if the phase 2 and 3 additions will be connected and Hoxmeier responded they would directly abut on the west elevation. Phase 3 will be a two-story "L" shaped addition on the parking lot and "A" Street sides, with the courtyard located in the corner. Hoxmeier then noted the addition that is currently being requested will be completely covered in phase 3.

Leighton asked if Hoxmeier could extend the roofline as Staff is recommending and he responded he could . When asked by Skibby why the ridge of the roof is so high, Hoxmeier stated it is higher because of the walls in the interior floor space. Meiser questioned the height variation of the roofline. Hoxmeier replied each phase will be higher and he did not want this addition to look like it sits on top of the existing building. He clarified that with the exception of the brick and arches, all materials will match the existing building. However, when the third phase is built, the entire exterior of the second phase addition will be covered.

Maser said she is bothered by the fact that none of the windows relate to any other. Hoxmeier said on the "A" Street side, the dormer was lined up over the major window groupings on the first floor. Maser commented that in her opinion, if the arches are removed and the center of the dormer is located between the lower two windows, this elevation would look better. She also questioned the second story windows on the north elevation. Hoxmeier clarified there will be a single hung window to the left of a French door. The solid walls of the balcony make it difficult to see this.

Leighton asked why the Variance is needed for the driveway. Knox said it is difficult to meet the 75-foot distance between driveways. Presently, the Grange does not want to do anything with its driveway. Hoxmeier stated he had communicated with the Grange regarding a shared driveway, but his idea was rejected. He would like to locate the driveway as close to the Grange as possible and he would still like to work something out regarding a combined driveway.

Meiser commented the wood siding is appropriate for the addition, however, the brick doesn't balance as well as it could. He continued he does not see a problem with the roofline as drawn because oftentimes, they are not uniformly even. He also said he thinks the random placement of the windows is not an issue.

Bailey criticized the brick and arches and stated she would prefer to see the roofline continue straight across. She also said the applicant should work on making the windows compatible. Maser agreed and noted she counted eight different windows and sizes. Steele said she concurred with Bailey and Maser and disagreed with Meiser on the roofline and windows. She prefers the elimination of the brick and simplification of the design.

Shostrom stated it is important the applicant create a rhythm with the windows. He noted some of the drawings that were submitted do not match the photos of the existing building. It is also necessary to look at the proportion of a building. While the proposed building is fairly proportional, the windows feel out of proportion. In addition, it is necessary to look for header heights to tie the existing building to the proposed addition. He also pointed out that once the arches and brick are taken away, it is obvious the windows are not proportional. He would like to see the building look whole. Shostrom suggested Hoxmeier draw other roofline options of the building, such as a hipped roof, to see if another type of design would work.

Leighton commented it would be better to make the building taller now with the roof extension rather than waiting for phase 3.

Foll noted he would like to see phase 2 match the existing building without the brick and arches. As far as compatibility is concerned, he would also like to see the windows on the east elevation project to the south elevation.

Skibby stated the drawings submitted are not to scale with what is existing. He agrees the brick should be eliminated, but said he is not bothered by the height differentiation in the roofline. He suggested making the windows more balanced.

Steele moved to reject the proposed building as presented with the comments as made by Staff and Commission members, and with the request the applicant take the above considerations into account and come back to the next meeting with clarified drawings. Maser seconded the motion. Shostrom amended the motion to clarify accurate drawings with details drawn to scale be submitted. Steele accepted the clarification. Maser commented written specifications should also be included. The motion was unanimously passed.


Planning Action 2000-124
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, Zone Change, Site Design and Use Review, Administrative Variances
51 Winburn Way
City of Ashland

Knox reported this application is for the renovation of the Hillah Temple building and the construction of a 4,086 square foot addition on the north and east sides. There will be seven parking spaces on site and four on the street. A design from the architect reflecting a gabled roof entry on the entrance pavilion was submitted, however staff would like to see something more commercial and traditional. Therefore, it is recommending the front entry be redesigned to incorporate a flat roofed entry with a cornice cap as included in the Staff Report and referenced as Staff Exhibit S-1.

Skibby asked why this is not a two-story building and Knox replied a second story could be eventually added. Also, he indicated it has been decided the best communication between Public Works and Community Development (the City departments that will be moved to the building) would result from a one-story structure. Skibby then asked if the Alice Peil Walkway would be affected and Knox stated it will be enhanced.

The Commission discussed the elevation included with the application versus Staff Exhibit S-1 (Plan Concept B). Skibby asked what design the Commission should be reviewing, as he felt the material provided did not make it clear. Knox told the Commission to study the elevations provided to make its decision.

Maser asked if there have been any objections from neighbors. Knox responded there had been none and reminded the Commission the process for this planning action started last year with the design charrettes.

Since other applicants are required to provide detailed drawings of buildings for Site Reviews, the Commission concurred the City should also be required to provide this type of information.

Foll stated he has no problem with the zone change but he could not make a judgment on the plans that were presented because more design detail and specifications are needed. He added he would like to see the design move more toward Staff Exhibit S-1. Leighton said she also prefers this design and asked if the interior layout would affect the design. Knox said the interior design is not in its final stage yet. Leighton related she also likes the treatment of the windows in the exhibit, as they are more compatible. She does not feel this building needs to fit all the criteria because of its location and ultimate use so she feels fine with the Variance and the Zone Change.

Shostrom said he thinks the building is well designed but wondered why there hasn't been more of a public process on this application. He was not at the Review Board when the pre-application was reviewed, but he said he hasn't seen anything since the design charrette. Hanson said various design concepts were presented to the City Council quite a while ago and the Council made a decision as to what direction the design should go. Shostrom then asked why the architect was not in attendance for a presentation with color renderings and a model, similar to when the library plans were presented. He wanted to know if the Commission even had a choice at this point. Bailey agreed and questioned why the City would not want the architects involved in a public presentation to the Historic Commission. Shostrom stated he finds it hard to recommend approval of the design because he can't scrutinize what the building will look like. There is simply not enough detail. Steele also agreed and said because of the lack of detail provided, she couldn't vote favorably for an application for the City that she wouldn't vote for someone else.

Maser related she was bothered by the fact that this is a public building and yet no public art or outdoor eating areas are provided. She realizes this is across the street from Lithia Park, but reiterated this is a public building and public orientation should be considered. She also stated she feels there is a big error in not providing more parking. There will be three major construction projects in the downtown area affecting parking at the same time - the library, OSF Theater and the Hillah Temple. This is a major impact on the citizens of Ashland, especially for those who can't take a bus, walk or ride a bicycle due to the location of their homes and physical conditions. She is also concerned only one shade tree is proposed for the seven parking spaces. Since this is a public building and the public is paying for it, it should have places for people to sit under shade trees and a place to park their cars.

Bailey agreed with Shostrom's comments and added she is amazed the City thinks the Commission can look at a picture with no details provided and expect approval. Meiser also agreed and noted more details are needed in the elevations. This should be expected from anyone. The building could be a real showpiece, but he said he would feel uncomfortable making a decision based on what was provided.

Knox stated he would try to get a presentation scheduled to clarify the Commission's concerns.

Steele commented a great deal is made about public input in various City sources and wondered if the Historic Commission will have a say in the design of the building.

Skibby remarked he feels comfortable with the way the design is going but agreed with the other members there is too much confusion on what is being presented for the final design. He also stated the Alice Peil Walkway and location and concealment of the garbage area should be addressed. There is a need here to see something more substantial.

Leighton added she is curious about the south side of the proposed addition as to why the entire wall is set back where the door is located.

Shostrom moved to deny this application because of the insufficient drawings and lack of presentation in order to understand what the building will look like. As part of this motion, he would like to request the architect come to the next Historic Commission meeting to make a presentation, as the members would like to be able to critique the final design. Without the preliminary plans, there is not enough to support approval. Steele seconded the motion. Leighton noted the Commission likes the intent of the design that was submitted. Meiser added the scale of the structure warrants a thorough review. Shostrom accepted the friendly amendments and the motion passed unanimously.



Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of December follow:

11 Pioneer Street


New Floor System

263 Seventh Street

James Gleaves

Shed Demolition

101 Oak Street

Standing Stone


267 Eighth Street

Ken McCulloh


11 Pioneer Street


Foundation Only for Theatre


Review Board

Following is the January 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

Skibby and Meiser

January 11th

Skibby, Steele and Bailey

January 18th

Skibby, Maser and Foll

January 25th

Skibby, Steele and Shostrom

February 1st

Skibby, Maser and Meiser

Project Assignments for Planning Actions

PA# 99-102

141 Lithia Way


PA# 99-108

340 Oak Street


PA #2000-039

410 Siskiyou Boulevard


PA #2000-052

220 Fourth Street


PA #2000-074

15 South Pioneer Street


PA #2000-088

159 North Main Street


PA #2000-095

180 Alida Street


PA #2000-098

50 Sixth Street


PA #2000-106

239 Oak Street


PA #2000-107

House Move to Laurel Street


PA #2000-108

552 "A" Street


Siskiyou Boulevard Committee

Shostrom reported three designs for Siskiyou Boulevard would be chosen and available for the public to view.

With a motion by Foll and second by Leighton, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to extend the meeting beyond 10:00 p.m.



Skidmore-Academy National Register Nomination

Knox stated he will be going to the State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation meeting in Roseburg on February 23. The Committee will be making its final decision on the inclusion of the Skidmore-Academy Historic District in the National Register of Historic Places at that time. He invited members to join him if they are able.

Travel Itinerary

Steele was happy to report the amended travel itinerary for the National Register web site was scheduled to be mailed the following day.

History Day

Leighton stated Southern Oregon Historical Society is looking for 60 people to volunteer their time to be a judge for the high school competition on history. History Day has been scheduled on February 17 at Southern Oregon University from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The winners have a chance to go to the State competition, then on to the Nationals. Volunteers should contact SOHS or Leighton.


Shostrom stated there is a need to clarify the policy regarding project presentation. Knox suggested the Commission write a draft policy and he would then submit it to the City Council. Shostrom said he would first like to know what the current policy is. He then stressed there ought to be a process, especially for public buildings. Leighton stated the Commission should anticipate spending more time on this subject at the next meeting. Meiser volunteered to put some language together for the next meeting. Shostrom will help.


With a motion by Shostrom and second by Leighton, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 10:26 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