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, July 05, 2000

July 5, 2000



Commissioners Foll, Leighton, Shostrom, Skibby, Maser, and Bailey were present. Commissioner Chambers arrived late. Staff present included Associate Planner Mark Knox and Clerk Derek Severson.


Skibby called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Skibby briefly explained that applicants would be allowed 15 minutes to make a presentation, and that public comment would be limited to 5 minutes per speaker. He also noted that applicants would be allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal.


Commissioners Leighton/Bailey m/s to approve the minutes of June 7, 2000 as presented. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.


Planning Action 2000-052/Robert Lombardi

Knox explained that this application had come before the commission last month, and that the applicant has incorporated many of the commission's recommendations in the plan before the commission tonight. Knox explained that the proposal is to cut the lot in half, and the property line will be 10 feet from the new building. Knox noted that this will be a two-story building off of Fourth Street, with parking along the side and a raised planter in the front to screen the parking.

Knox stated that this is a traditional style, Main Street building, with a clear delineation between the floors. He pointed out that there will be storefront windows on the first floor and bay windows on the second. Knox suggested that this would be a nice addition to the area, and noted some of the architectural features on the elevations.

Knox pointed out that there are exterior stairs at the rear, and that the first floor can be accessed via Fourth Street. Knox noted that he could answer any further questions the commissioners might have, and noted as well that the applicant was present.

Skibby asked Knox to explain the concern raised in the staff report over the ability to reconvert the space. Knox explained that staff is always concerned when it will be difficult to replace one use with another use that is permitted within the zone. Knox noted that in this case, the first floor could be converted to commercial space easily.

Maser inquired as to the height of the building, and questioned how it would relate to the structure next door. The applicant noted that it was roughly 25 feet tall.

Foll noted that the application refers to this as a hotel/motel and as a traveler's accommodation, and questioned which this is. He noted that hotel/motel would be permitted in an E1 zone, but questioned the 1200 square foot per unit size. He emphasized that if these were residential units, they would not be allowed in this zone.

Knox explained that the definition a motel does not require that an owner/manager reside on site, and is permitted with a Conditional Use Permit in the E1 and C1 zones.

The applicant explained that he understood the distinction had to do with having cooking facilities in units. He explained that he owns similar units elsewhere in the same zone. He explained that there will be off-site management from his residence, with motel-type services to clean the rooms, change the linens, and etc. He noted that rental periods will typically be for a weekend or perhaps one week.

Knox clarified that this application qualifies as a motel under the definitions of the land use ordinance, not a traveler's accommodation as indicated in the application.

The applicant concluded that he has incorporated the commission's recommendation from the last review, and beyond that he has nothing to add.

Chambers questioned the trim width in sheet 7 of 17. Applicant explained that the trim is stucco, and is raised and roughly 3/4" thick, and is roughly six inches around the window, eight inches at the corners, and twelve inches on the splash and center belly band.

Chambers clarified that because stucco is being used, these dimensions are real rather than prior to milling as with wood. Chambers noted the importance of paying attention to trim widths when trying to be historically compatible, as historically buildings used wider trim than is used today.

The applicant explained that stucco was chosen for this reason, and he noted that the trim portion and sills will be a contrasting color.

Shostrom noted that the drawing in the packet do not show proportional dimensions of the belly band, trim, or casings. He requested that more specific final drawings, drawn to scale, be submitted for review. Shostrom also suggested that for historical compatibility, the waterline could be beveled and carried all the way to the ground to provide more of a base than just trim.

Shostrom questioned what type of supports would be used for the bay windows and trellis. He emphasized that specific details are needed for historic review. He stated that the change to stucco was a positive step.

Opened to public comment at 7:52 p.m.

No speaker came forward

Closed to public comment at 7:52 p.m.

Commission Discussion

Skibby noted that the application has already been before the review board and the full commission last month. He recognized the validity of the points raised by Shostrom, but stated that overall he feels comfortable with this proposal. He further explained that the project will be compatible with both the historic district and the neighborhood.

Knox suggested some wording which would be included in the approval to the effect that at the time of submittal, detailed elevation drawings would need to be submitted for approval by the review board. Both the applicant and the commissioners expressed their agreement with the addition of this condition.

Knox clarified for Foll that the definition of a motel in the Land Use Ordinance allows for any rental "thirty days or less."

Commissioners Leighton/Bailey m/s to accept the proposal, with the additional condition suggested by Knox. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.

2000-064/Ashland Community Hospital

Knox provided some background information on this application, noting that staff had administratively approved the request for placement of a parking lot at the Northeast corner of Catalina and Maple, which is currently a vacant lot. Knox noted that private parking lots require a conditional use permit, and that in this case, when a public notice for the project was placed in the newspaper a neighbor called it up for a public hearing.

He explained that the lot will be surfaced with crushed gravel to provide parking for Ashland Community Hospital. Knox further noted that this proposal is for a temporary parking lot, to be in place for only two years. He also stated after two years, the intent was to build the building that was approved for the site in 1998.

Knox pointed out that no sidewalks were required for this project, but noted that the Hospital will be paying to put in a sidewalk on the west side of Maple Street, from North Main to Catalina. Knox stated that staff did not feel that a sidewalk was necessary on the corner.

Skibby questioned what the plans are for the house that is currently on the site. Knox explained that the house will remain until the new building is put in. Knox emphasized that this is a temporary, two-year approval, but that it could be extended if the applicant went through another application.

Maser questioned what sort of landscaping was proposed for this project. Knox noted that shading trees will be used, and that trees will be planted in accordance with the street tree requirements.

Shostrom questioned how drainage will be dealt with. Knox stated that he was uncertain, and Skibby noted that the applicant was not on hand to answer questions. Foll noted that the landscape and irrigation plan was included in the packet, under the application on the back of the fourth blue page. Skibby asked that the review board have the opportunity to review the final landscape plan.

Jed Meese/88 Granite Street/Noted that he is in favor of the project, and stated that it will be built out in the future. Meese emphasized that this proposal will work to alleviate parking problems for the near term.

Knox explained for Bailey that access would be from Scenic, and that the curb cut off of Maple would be closed. Bailey expressed her concern that this would create more traffic in a residential area. Knox recognized that this would increase traffic on Scenic, but noted that if the curb cut were to be kept to allow Maple Street access it would create more conflicts by opening onto a primary street, raising safety issues. Knox emphasized that policy is to utilize secondary streets where possible, and noted that it was likely that trips would be only to the nearest signal rather than on through the residential area.

Skibby stated that he was comfortable with this application, as the house would be remaining. Chambers concurred.

Commissioners Shostrom/Chambers m/s to approve the application as submitted. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.

2000-074/Oregon Shakespeare Festival

Public Hearing Opened: 8:15 p.m.

Staff Report

Knox provided background on the application, and noted that the commissioners were likely aware of the location and history of this project. Knox recounted the previous discussion where the Festival had proposed removing Carpenter Hall. In response to community sentiment, they have now proposed retaining Carpenter Hall and building a new theater building on the parking lot behind it.

Knox noted that the current proposal is a three-story, 33,000 square foot building adjacent to Hargadine Street. He pointed out that there will be a parking structure adjacent to the theater on the city-owned property.

Knox explained that a conditional use permit is required here due to the height of the fly tower, which is to be 5.2 feet higher than the 40-foot maximum height. Knox noted that there are some concerns with the proposed height and with entry feature. He pointed out that the applicant has removed some of the screening which was initially proposed, but stated that staff still has some reservations with the entry due to the design standards. Knox went on to explain that the screening limits the light level encountered by exiting patrons, but emphasized that the screen tends to diminish the opening. Knox suggested that the applicant might look into some interior changes to limit the amount of light.

Knox noted that staff also has concerns with the cable proposed as a guard rail for the upper level of the parking structure. He suggested that this cable is not in keeping with the historical integrity of the area. Knox stated that a better choice would be something that would better screen the cars.

Knox stated that the staff's also has a concern with the transparency of the windows, which are currently proposed to be tinted. Knox recognized that the second floor is where patrons would enter and exit, and stated that staff is cognizant of the purpose for this tinting, which is similar to that used in the Bowmer Theater. He suggested that tinting on the first floor could be eliminated to allow for pedestrian and streetscape penetration.

Knox also noted that there are issues with the size of the building, and the number of trips generated.

Knox summarized the applicant's proposal, noting that the applicant has provided an interesting design for the use, mass, and materials, and noted features including the trellises, patios, and walls. Emphasized that overall, the project is a viable one that would be beneficial to the downtown. He stated that the project has a similar feeling to the Bowmer, and that staff favors it.

Skibby inquired about the impact on the walkways near the Varsity and Starbucks. Knox explained that the walkways will remain, but that the intensity of use will be increased. He stated that staff feels this will be a positive change.

Leighton questioned how the project will effect the parking area behind Starbucks. Knox stated that it will remain open, as the owner has an agreement to use the area. He also noted that the area must remain accessible for trash pick-up. Leighton asked how trash receptacles will be handled; Knox responded that there is a requirement to screen them.


Richard Hay noted that he has worked for the Festival since 1950, and has been involved in all of their projects since then. He stated that he has lived in Ashland since 1970, and noted that he was formerly a Stanford University professor. Hay noted that OSF Executive Director Paul Nicholson and architect Thomas Hacker were absent due to scheduling conflicts, and submitted a letter on their behalf.

Knox questioned the last bullet in the letter, which addressed screening. Hay explained that the freestanding vertical screen had been eliminated from the plan, but a sliding horizontal screen has been retained.

Hay briefly explained how this project has progressed over time. He emphasized that everyone is happy that the Festival reconsidered and kept Carpenter Hall. He pointed out that the proposed theater has now been reduced and pushed back on the site, and there have been a number of public spaces added.

Hay noted that there will be a service vault underground, with landscaping above. Also noted features including the entry courtyard's connection to the main courtyard, and the north-side walkway connecting to the alley at the Lithia Springs Hotel. He emphasized that the walkway will be landscaped, and will include pedestrian friendly features. He also stated that Starbucks will have alley access for trash pick-up and emergency response vehicles.

Hay pointed out that the stairs for the alley connection to East Main Street will be realigned, but the screen of the trash receptacles will be the responsibility of Starbucks. Hay also noted that the receptacles are currently not screened.

Chambers questioned what will happen when vehicles and pedestrians are in the alley at the same time. Hay explained that trash pick-up will normally be early in the morning when there is the least likelihood for conflict with pedestrians.

Hay explained for Skibby that the wall will have a height of roughly 30 feet at the walkway. Hay also noted that modifications to the current proposal are being considered as the possibility of a combined effort is discussed with the owners of the Lithia Springs Hotel.

Hay also noted that the material to be used for the exterior has been changed to break up the mass of the structure. He explained that more brick will be used, and showed a newly revised drawing illustrating the view from the Courtyard and Pioneer Street. He pointed out that the stucco and metal previously proposed has been changed to horizontally aligned cedar siding, which greatly reduces the impact.

Hay noted that the theater is designed to be a cube within a cube, and noted the elevations. He also explained that the architect has broken up the mass by changing the plan and materials.

Skibby noted that the applicant had used his allotted fifteen minutes, but suggested that as a point of order the applicant be allowed to continue in order to address questions from the commission.

Hay noted that the parking structure is currently being discussed with the Lithia Springs Hotel, and that the present design calls for plantings at the corners with vines in planters similar to what has been done to the structure in Medford. He also explained that the third level will be open, and noted that there will be no vehicular access between levels because of the amount of space that would be taken up with ramps. He pointed out that the solution to this may be a European device that would display the number of available spaces on each level. He stated that more work will be done to define the entries and make things understandable.

Skibby questioned the staff concern having to do with cable railing. Knox distributed elevations and explained that the concern was with the upper level. Hay explained that the council had requested that this remain open and visible.

Hay explained for Skibby that the tinted glazing is intended to give patrons the opportunity to adapt from the darkness of the theater before going into full sunlight. Hay explained further that this design is needed to prevent accidents, and emphasized that older patrons require longer for their eyes to adjust to the light. He pointed out that most plays occur in the evening, and the westerly exposure means that there will be full sun on the exit, and explained that this is the reasoning behind both the screening (to block the light) and the tinting (to soften the intensity of the light, similarly to what is done in the Bowmer).

Skibby questioned if there was not some way to accomplish this using interior elements. Hay stated that both curtains and shades would serve the same purpose, but noted that handling this outside was more energy efficient as it would prevent heat from building up inside. Foll noted that they make sensors that can draw shades when the sun is on the window, but he recognized that these could be costly.

Bailey questioned the fly tower design. Hay stated that the tower would be visible, as in the drawing he presented, but he noted that it would be in cedar wood. He suggested that a person would likely need to be on Hargadine Street or at the Bowmer Theater in order to see it.

Maser questioned whether the fly tower was on the lowest point of the site. Hay stated that the north side would be lowest, but placing it there would require an underground entry due to the slope and the required stage level. Hay went on to explain that in addition to the stage, two levels of basement are required. He pointed out the basement layout in the floorplan diagrams. He also explained that there would be a cost to excavate further, and noted that the current design takes advantage of the slope.

Hay pointed out that the entry design is an attempt to address the existing courtyard. Maser suggested using the entry in combination with long hallways to minimize the building's height. Hay explained that they had focused on the courtyard orientation.

In Favor

Doug Mitchell/1255 Green Meadows Way/He noted that he'd had his doubts about the theater building with the original designs. He went on to explain that he is amazed with the changes that OSF has made from their original proposal to address community doubts. He stated his belief that the new theater will be an asset to the downtown, and expressed his support for the current proposal. He emphasized that the existing Black Swan Theater is limited, but suggested that the new theater will be good for the area.

Bill Patton/110 Terrace Street/He explained that he began his association with the Festival in 1947, with Angus Bowmer. He noted that he was the first manager, in 1953, and explained that he had retired after 50 years. He commended Richard Hay for his work, and recounted how they fought in the 1950's and 1960's to defeat an effort that would have recreated Ashland as a Tudor-style village. He emphasized that the Festival wants compatibility and is considering the downtown. He explained that a lot has gone into this project, and while they have considered another site at Water and Helman Streets, they chose to retain one campus. He emphasized that this is not a new idea, and is not "growth for growth's sake."

Carlene Hull/820 Pinecrest Terrace/She explained that she is a real estate broker with Ashland Homes Realty near the Black Swan Theater. She noted that she likes the diverse architecture, and suggested that the Festival has taken care to fit this design into the downtown and to make it compatible with the neighboring properties. She noted the features that were adjusted to blend in better, and explained that she is pleased with the plan to upgrade the area behind Earthly Goods and the Varsity Theater. She urged the commission to grant their approval of this project.

Al Alsing/970 Walker Avenue/Alsing noted that he is the former City of Ashland Public Works Director, in addition to being a fifty-year resident of the City. He explained how different the City was years ago, with 6500 residents, boarded up buildings, only two motels, three restaurants, and no arts to speak of. He emphasized that the Festival has been the engine that has moved things ahead. He explained that inflation raises material costs, and this creates the need for extra revenue. He noted that ticket prices cannot be raised too high, so the options are to extend the season or to add the seats. He emphasized the importance of keeping the Festival engine going, and stated that the Festival has tried to cooperate by keeping Carpenter Hall and adding parking spaces. Concluded that if he was still Public Works Director, he would support this proposal.

Hay noted that the hope is that the new theater will allow the Festival to increase ticket sales to existing theatergoers, rather than drawing in additional patrons.

Michael Gibbs/536 Ashland Street/Noted that the Festival has helped the town evolve, and suggested that the theater building works nicely and will blend well into the area. He emphasized that it has the effect of building a campus in the area, and will blend different styles without clashing. He also pointed out that this would be a big financial benefit to the community.

Jed Meese/88 Granite Street/Reiterated the work that OSF has done with the community. He emphasized that this is an important project, and noted that local fundraising efforts began last week and will continue through October. He noted that he moved here in 1987 because of OSF, and he meets people all over the world that know Ashland for the theater. He urged approval of this proposal.

Gibbs also noted that sunlight on Hargadine Street is intense, and can raise temperatures indoors by as much as 20 degrees.

Le Hook/393 Oxford Street/He noted that he is a former Historic Commissioner, and pointed out that he works for the Festival. He stated that he walks the site in question 2-5 times each day. He then discussed the streetscapes visible from the area: there is a parking lot with a view of the back of some commercial buildings; there are houses on Hargadine Street, which rise 8-12 feet over the street level; there is the old, closed key shop building; from Pioneer Street, there is Carpenter Hall, which is not a particularly attractive building; and there is the Black Swan Theater, which is a former scene shop that has a very utilitarian appearance. He suggested that from any direction, this theater would represent an improvement.

Paul Manch/451 North Main Street/Echoed other speakers' sentiments that this project would be good for the community. Noted that he hears frequent complaints about the difficulty in getting tickets for the Black Swan Theater.

Dan Thorndike/369 Granite Street/Vice President of the Festival Board/He emphasized that both the site and the design reflect the compromises reached through a public process. He also noted that there has been an effort made to limit the scale of the project, and recognized that there are trade-offs both for the Festival and for the Community. He concluded by noting the efforts that have been made to minimize and centralize the impacts, and by suggesting that this new theater building would make OSF the pre-eminent small theater in the world.

Marilyn Briggs/590 Glenview Drive/Planning Commissioner Briggs questioned whether the new theater building is to be connected to Carpenter Hall. The applicant indicated that it would not be connected, and noted that there were spiral stairs for performer access, with no connections. Briggs also questioned placing trees over mechanical space, and noted that this could create soil problems for the trees and result in dripping on the mechanical equipment. Briggs also pointed out that there may be problems from the City's perspective with the necking down of Pioneer Street as it could have adverse effects on emergency vehicle access. Briggs inquired about the entry design, and whether anything but a flat roof would work to lessen crowding.

Hay responded that the downtown design standards call for the flat roof, and stated that they were willing to leave the necking down of the street to city staff to make a determination. Hay also explained that they are depending on their engineers and landscapers to determine whether the trees being placed over the mechanical space would work.

In Opposition

Colin Swales/451 Allison Street/He noted his opposition to this design, and explained that he has followed the process from the beginning. He noted that he helped to save Carpenter Hall, and suggested that not much has changed in the design - the Festival is keeping Carpenter Hall and building on City-owned property. He suggested that the Festival should build on a site that it owns, or build an actual replacement for the Black Swan. Swales noted that even the former Artistic Director of the Festival was opposed to growth, and pointed out that both the City Council and those speaking in favor in the crowd tonight have personal interests involved. He suggested that architecturally this site has the most wonderful views in the state, and he stated that the new building will block those views from the public. The new theater will only allow those who are paying patrons to enjoy views from the theater's lobby. Swales expressed his objection to referring to the property as part of a campus, and noted that the north-facing thirty-foot parapet wall will block daylight from reaching pedestrians. Swales emphasized that this new building will compete with the Mark Antony to dominate the view of Ashland from the freeway, and suggested that the Black Swan be remodeled or that the current prop shop be replaced with a theater.

Public Hearing Closed at 9:31 p.m.


Hay noted that they investigated building on the Black Swan site, and tried several designs, but the footprint was too small and they were unable to acquire the property necessary for expansion. He emphasized that they had looked at this option for four years. Hay also pointed out that originally, the Festival acquired the property to be used for the new building, and deeded it back to the City.

Leighton questioned what the view of the new building would be like from East Main Street. Hay stated that he did not have any diagrams to show how the view might be affected, but suggested that the new building would be most obviously visible from East Main near Starbucks.

Skibby noted how the design has progressed through the process, and stated that he feels that keeping Carpenter Hall is a positive step. He suggested that the design, with the changes that have been incorporated, is a major improvement, and he is comfortable with the walkways. He suggested that there should be discussion of the elements that have caused concerns for staff.

Bailey suggested that the louvered screening would be better if it were not metal. Leighton questioned whether the trellis proposed will be similar to that at the current members' lounge. The applicant explained that it would not be quite the same, as it will be flat with a flat roof over the entry. He explained that this would help to reduce light. Leighton recognized that reducing light was necessary, and suggested that she felt the glazing was acceptable.

Foll confirmed that the louvers do move on a slider. Bailey questioned the greenery that will be used here, and the applicant suggested that it would likely be some kind of vines. The applicant also clarified that the lobby used during intermission will be behind the trellis, with bathrooms on the lower level and a deck above at the level of Carpenter Hall. He noted this on the floor plan to show that theater-goers will be going into the sunlight at intermission, and explained that the Festival's efforts are intended to mitigate the effects of the light while also lessening the heating that will occur from direct sunlight exposure.

Skibby suggested that the louvers are a unique situation, and stated that they soften the entry. Emphasized that overall, he likes the design and location, but suggested that he would prefer if there was something done to address a greater "sense of entry."

Shostrom suggested that this remains a muscular, contemporary, monolithic structure, and he does not see any historical compatibility. He emphasized that historical elements are missing, and suggested that it is simply a large, rectangular structure similar to some on the SOU campus. He recognized that the changes that have been proposed are improvements, but stated that the details included are not compatible.

Shostrom continued by noting that he liked the brick, and has problems with the use of cedar siding. He suggested that this siding is too light, and would weather poorly, and stated that he would favor stucco. He also noted that a pitched roof would not be possible, but suggested that it should be a flat roof with a parapet and cornice to suit the downtown location. He stated that he likes the trellis, but stated that the building is contemporary and dwarfs the Carpenter Hall building. He also explained that he does not feel that the design is historic, and he has problems with the details and the mass.

Skibby questioned whether Shostrom's concerns were with the overall project, or just the entry area. Shostrom stated that he has various problems, section by section, including that it is too high and that the trellis does not adequately mitigate the overall design.

Maser concurred, noting that there is no historical precedent for the design, and no attempt to reference the proximal Carpenter Hall or the rest of the nearby theater buildings. She stated that while the concept is wonderful, she does not see any historical compatibility in the design details. She emphasized that the proposal will look like the building has just been stuck there, and she indicated that she found this disturbing. She also suggested that the elevation is not a realistic view, and is deceptive.

Skibby pointed out that the design has to address the current theaters, including the Black Swan and Carpenter Hall. He suggested that some contrast is necessary to avoid diminishing, and noted that the setback effectively puts the theater in the background. He continued by noting that the design now has a lower profile, and the materials are compatible to the surroundings.

Maser pointed out that this building will be ten times the size of Carpenter Hall. Skibby explained that a smaller structure would not work, so they have saved Carpenter Hall and used the theater to create a backdrop. Skibby also noted that this is a separate building, and reiterated that it would be impossible to make it any smaller. He suggested that if the entry were changed, he would be comfortable with the overall effort here. He recognized that growth is occurring, and more space is needed, and suggested that this is the best alternative given that it adds parking spaces. He also suggested that trying to echo elements of Carpenter Hall at that size would overpower the site.

Knox noted that the downtown design standards are involved here, and noted that there is no requirement to replicate historic elements except on the street. He suggested that this was kept in mind in keeping the structure well back from the street. He also explained that the intended use brings the need for the building's large size. He recognized that historical elements could be added, and noted staff's concerns with the panels that diminish the entry, the glazing, and the cable rails on the parking structure. He emphasized that the intent here was not to replicate historic elements.

Bailey recognized that a large theater was needed, and stated that this design is a great job. She conceded that there is not a strong sense of entry, and suggested that there is actually a 1950-like boxy feeling to the design with the squat front doors. Bailey concluded that with the exception of the entry, she was all for this design.

Leighton stated that each building on the campus is unique, and there is not a historical basis for trying to unify the designs. She suggested that this is both contemporary and compatible, but she stated that she would prefer it if stucco were used.

Chambers stated that he does not feel quite right about the entry, and suggested that the "cube within a cube" design could be altered on the exterior without having to alter the interior design.

Commissioners Leighton/Foll m/s to extend the meeting to 10:30. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.

Chambers indicated the model, and suggested that the entry looks tacked on. He stated that this could be mitigated, and that improvements could be made without too much modification to the design. He reiterated that the tacked-on entry offers options, and asked the applicant to look at what could be done to improve the design.

Foll stated that he has seen this project grow from the beginning, and emphasized that the entry has never been strong enough. He stated that the entry is still weak, and suggested that he likes brick and alcoves. He recognized that this is not intended to be historic and that it can still be accepted. He stated that it is new and big, but it is needed, and it is located where it is needed to be. He also stated that the cedar is a poor choice for longevity. Chambers also pointed out that no residents of the surrounding neighborhood have expressed concern about the view, and he feels it is magnificent despite the flawed entry.

Knox suggested that any motion crafted by the commission should include the reservations that the members have expressed, so that the Planning Commission can be aware of these concerns. He emphasized that a motion does not have to be just approval or denial, but should include some indication as to the substance of the discussion that has occurred. He suggested that concerns could even be itemized by element, with commissioners to vote for each item separately.

Discussed the main front entry and the sliding panels on the first floor. Bailey suggested that clear glass and stronger posts could be used to improve the sense of entry. She recommended using something with more weight than just 4x4's. Chambers suggested that the current entry be taken off and the design begun again. Chambers also suggested echoing Carpenter Hall with double gables and arched windows. He stated that the current design looks nearly suburban in its present incarnation. Bailey suggested that the current design should be worked on, with the entry strengthened to mitigate the rest. Chambers stated that the materials and strength of entry need to be looked at, and should be redesigned entirely. He suggested that this would not be terribly challenging, as it involves only exterior details.

There was discussion of crafting a motion addressing these issues of concern, to indicate that members are generally in favor of the project with some reservations. Chambers suggested wording to the effect that the Commission is generally in favor of the application, which has tremendous positive impact, but that there are some concerns with materials used, the screening presentation, the sense of entry, and the need to echo more historic elements, as well as better screening of the parking structure.


Commissioners Bailey/Leighton moved/seconded to recommend that the commission is generally in favor of this application, and recognizes the tremendous positive impact of OSF on the community. However, the commissioners wished to express the following concerns: 1) on the west elevation would prefer the use of stucco siding rather than cedar siding (exposure and weathering problems); 2) the screening panels on the west elevation to be removed (contemporary and diminishes "sense of entry"); 3) the need to strengthen the sense of entry with stronger pillars or to completely redesign the entry to echo more historic elements; 4) the need to use clear rather than tinted glass in the bottom story entry glazing; and 5) the need to provide more screening than mere cables on the third level of the parking structure. Voice vote: Chambers, Foll, Leighton, Skibby, Maser, and Bailey: AYE. Shostrom: NAY. Motion passed 6-1.



The following is the July schedule for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department:

July 6

Skibby, Maser (Steele if possible)

July 13

Skibby, Bailey (Leighton if jury duty allows)

July 20

Skibby, Foll, Chambers

July 27

Skibby, Maser, Leighton








It was noted that the Goal Setting meeting scheduled for July 13th would be at the Hillah Temple at 4:00 p.m., due to scheduling conflicts. Knox explained that the group would meet at the Lithia Springs Hotel rear parking lot at 4:00. Knox noted that food would be from Pilaf, and distributed a menu for members to review.


Bailey noted that the homeowner at the corner of Manzanita and High Streets had been pressured into installing vinyl siding by a group now doing high-pressure sales in Ashland. It was also noted that a home at Nursery and Rock had installed the siding. Bailey noted that ads have been sent around in the paper recently, and emphasized that the siding will actually devalue the structures. Leighton suggested that the commission prepare an article for the paper on this issue. Knox noted that the Site Design and Use Standards are opposed to vinyl siding. Bailey and Maser agreed to prepare an article under the full commission's name, and Knox agreed to provide them some background information.


Commissioners Leighton/Chambers m/s to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.








Submitted by

Derek Severson

Planning Division

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