ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION

Minutes

January 4, 2006

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

Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Keith Swink, Sam Whitford, Terry Skibby, Jay Leighton, Allen Crutcher, Tom Giordano, and Henry Baker, Rob Saladoff
Absent Members:  None

Council Liaison: Jack Hardesty - Absent

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

CALL TO ORDER – REGULAR MEETING

At 7:08, Chairman Dale Shostrom called the regular meeting to order.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Chairman Shostrom asked the voting results on Planning Action #2005-01674, 11 First Street, be changed to reflect he voted against recommending approval of the project.  Ms. Leighton made a motion to approve the minutes as amended and was seconded by Chairman Shostrom.  The motion was passed unanimously.

PUBLIC FORUM:  No speakers

PUBLIC HEARING

Planning Action 2005-02105

Site Review

Urban Development Services, LLC/SERA Architects

145 E. Main Street

Chairman Shostrom read the description of the project and verified there were no conflict of interest issues.

Ms. Harris reviewed the staff report pointing out that the three-story, mixed-use building is comprised of commercial space on the ground floor and two residential condominiums on the second and third floors.  The proposed building is described as modern yet architectural style with a Lithia Way façade of brick, concrete and steel.  The rear façade on Will Dodge Way is primarily cement plaster.  The building will have aluminum clad windows and steel mesh screens and railings.  The applicant incorporated the recommendations made by the Historic Commission during the Pre-Application review such as a more prominent base and pedestrian-friendly detailing on the rear elevation. Although the project could be reviewed administratively, Staff scheduled the review for a public hearing due to the high level of interest from the community as well as from the Historic Commission for new buildings in the Downtown Historic District.

Ms. Harris pointed out that the maximum building height in the C-1-D zoning district is 40 feet.  The application appears to use an incorrect finished ground level on the sides of the building resulting in the building height being four to ten inches higher than the 40-foot maximum.  It had been pointed out to the applicant that a Conditional Use Permit could be applied for to exceed the maximum height.

Another concern of Staff was that the proposed sidewalk adjacent to Lithia Way does not meet the standard of six to ten feet in width.  The application proposes a four foot wide sidewalk between the tree well and the front of the building.  In staff’s opinion, an eight foot wide sidewalk should be required to provide a better pedestrian buffer due to the height of the building and high traffic flow on the arterial street.

There was also a recommendation of Staff that the application be continued pending submittal and approval of a preliminary electric layout plan.  The current plan shows a transformer located across the alley from the subject property.

Mr. Crutcher asked if the tree “well” was required.  Ms. Harris confirmed the street design standards required it. Mr. Giordano asked if parking could be eliminated along Lithia Way.  Ms. Harris said Lithia Way was the jurisdiction of ODOT, plus proposed parking spaces would be lost.  There were no further questions of staff.

Mark Knox of Urban Development Services, 320 E. Main St. #202, responded to the issues raised by staff.  They were working with the Electric Department to combine electrical services with the proposed affordable housing project across the alley.  He felt the methodology they used to calculate the building height was accurate even though it differed from Ms. Harris’ calculations.  Addressing the sidewalk width issue, Mr. Knox pointed out that the tree well was specifically placed in front of the recessed alcove of the building to maintain a wider walkway.

Mr. Giordano stated he preferred to keep the buildings flush to maintain the historical look of a downtown district, but felt the narrow width of the sidewalk was an important issue not only for this building but for future buildings proposed.  Discussion followed regarding several options. 

Mr. Flenders reviewed the architectural details that were added or changed as requested by the Historic Commission in their Pre-Application comments.  Samples of the brick and the wire mesh were viewed.  Mr. Whitford questioned the use of windows on the side of the building and what would happen to them if another building were built adjoining this one.  Mr. Flenders said an agreement would be made to remove and close in the windows if the situation arose.

Mr. Baker requested the applicant allow archeologists the opportunity to test the site prior to start of construction due to a high probability of an aboriginal settlement of significance in that area.  Mr. Knox felt confident the owner would allow testing to be done between approval of the planning action and issuance of the building permit.

Ms. Harris stated the staff’s concerns were not addressed.  Decisions on this project could not be predicated on the possibility of future plans for another project at the City parking lot when nothing had been submitted for review.  She also stated the building height calculations using just the average grade on Lithia Way and the alley make the building height over the 40 foot maximum.

Mr. Knox suggested they pivot and square up the front of the building from the Mojo building side that would provide the 8 feet of straight sidewalk at the tree well and continue to widen up to 12 feet at the other end of the building.

There being no further questions of the applicant and no one in the audience wishing to speak, the public meeting was closed.

Chairman Shostrom moved to recommend approval of the application with the following conditions:

·         Pivot the building at Mojo’s, for all three stories, squaring the building to increase the sidewalk width (not including the parkrow width) so it is 8 feet from the curb at the west end and 12 feet at the east end, while maintaining all the same design elements with no change to the façade in design or elevation. Recommend moving the street tree to the east to provide wider walking path.

·         Submit scaled drawings to the full Historic Commission of the architectural details and materials for all exterior components including cornices, steel elements, mesh samples, reveals, and color palette prior to submittal of the building permit.

·         Allow archeological study to be done on the site during the time period between approval of the planning action and prior to issuance of the building permit.

Mr. Baker seconded the motion and all the Commissioners, except Mr. Giordano who was not present at this point of the meeting, approved it unanimously.

DISCUSSION ITEMS

160 Helman Street

James Batzer, Mark Knox

Pre-Application comments on proposal for a Mixed-Use Development

Mr. Knox reviewed some of the changes they had redesigned in response to suggestions made by the Historic Commission at the September 7, 2005  meeting.  He was interested in additional feedback from the Commission on general design and esthetics.  Mr. Batzer explained his intention to create a “village” where residents work and live within walking distance of the downtown.

Chairman Shostrom and Ms. Leighton still feel the buildings are too tall.  Mr. Whitford and Ms. Leighton liked the lowered center section. Several Commissioners expressed dislike of the craftsman detailing on the larger corner buildings.  Mr. Crutcher felt the rear façade needed more detail since it was so visible from Van Ness Street.  Ms. Leighton suggested cascading the building back from the street to give the look of one or one and half stories along Helman Street.  The majority of the Commissioners felt the corner building is too big and chopped up.  Mr. Giordano and Mr. Swink stated the design lacked scale particularly in the small four foot balconies and the entries. The Commissioners suggested using recesses instead of projections to add interest to façade.  The large building nearest the alley needs to be softened.

OLD BUSINESS

A. Review Board  – 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:

B.  Project Assignments for Planning Actions

C.     City Design Review Process Memo – Tom Giordano reviewed the memo he drafted for the City Council to recommend the Council create a Commission to do design review on projects outside the historic districts. Ms. Leighton moved to approve submittal of the letter amended to eliminate any reference of the existing Historic Commission expanding their role to do it.

D.     Co-Sponsorship with Conservation Commission for Fall Workshop – No Report

E.     Lithia Springs National Register Nomination – No Report

F.      Multiple Listing Survey for National Register of Historic Places – No Report

G.     Single Family Residential Design Standards – No Report

H.     Brown Bag Meeting – No Report

NEW BUSINESS –

A.      Mr. Swink stated he was still researching availability of a DVD projector to show the “Blue Vinyl” movie during the Historic Preservation Week.

B.     Changes to Oregon’s Special Assessment Program – No discussion

ANNOUNCEMENTS

The next Historic Commission meeting will be on February 8, 2006 at 7:00 pm in the Siskiyou Room.

ADJOURNMENT

With a motion by Shostrom and a second by Leighton, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m.