ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION

Minutes

August 2, 2006

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

Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Molly Owens-Stevenson, Terry Skibby, Henry Baker, Sam Whitford, Rob Saladoff,
Absent  Commission Members:  Jay Leighton, Tom Giordano, Keith Swink

Council Liaison: Vacant

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

Staff Absent:  Billie Boswell, Administration

CALL TO ORDER – REGULAR MEETING

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

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

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

PUBLIC FORUM:  No speakers

PUBLIC HEARING

Planning Action 2006-00612

160 Helman Street

Site Review

Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer

Chairman Shostrom read the description of the project and verified there were no conflict of interest issues.  Ms. Owens-Stevenson abstained since it was her first meeting and she had not been present at the previous discussions.

Mark Knox of Urban Development Services and Mark McKechnie, architect for Batzer Construction, described the changes they made to the plan per previous suggestions from the Historic Commission.  They answered several questions about the color and type of detail materials such as green metal roofing, cream stucco with stipple finish, red brick, grey ground block, blue horizontal siding with wood trim, vinyl windows and shiny metal chimneys.

Chairman Shostrom pointed out several discrepancies between the different plan views and elevations and commented how confusing they were.

Mr. Knox requested that Condition 21 be amended to add “heavily” to the window tinting sentence so that it reads “…the windows shall not be heavily tinted so as to prevent view from outside….)

There being no further questions of the applicant, the meeting was opened to public comment.

Ron Davies, 6795 Rapp Lane, who owns 129 & 159 Helman and a business at 157 Helman, said that the City of Ashland promised to have transition at Central and Helman in the Haines development.  He said the E-1 district on A Street from Eighth Street to Van Ness Avenue would have no three-story buildings.  He was in favor of the building but not three-stories high.

In rebuttal, Mr. Knox pointed out that the zoning allows building heights to 40 feet and other 3-story buildings have been approved for construction in the area.  He said this is the “gateway” into the railroad district.  Building 1, on the southern portion of the site, is designed to blend with the residences in that area.  Mr. McKechnie described the third story as more of a clerestory that will contain two bedrooms.  Mr. Knox explained that the idea of the clerestory was taken from a historic photo of a mill that was located on the site.

Since there was no one else in the audience wishing to speak, the public meeting was closed.

Chairman Shostrom was concerned that compared to other buildings in the area, this project seemed larger in bulk and scale because of the minimal setbacks from Helman Street. Mr. Saladoff and Mr. Whitford felt the way the Building 1 was broken up minimized the impact and made it more comparable to the new building at the corner of Helman and Van Ness as well as the existing Pyramid Juice building.

Mr. Saladoff pointed out that the redesign of the corner building was not shown in the plans.  He was also concerned about all the varied materials used on the bump-out elements of the buildings and the lack of a sense of entry.

Chairman Shostrom and Mr. Saladoff pointed out numerous discrepancies in design details throughout the different site and elevation plans making it difficult to know what is be proposed.  Mr. Skibby commented that he supports the project and would not want to see it denied.  Mr. Saladoff stated that there was enough uncertainty in the drawings that he would recommend a continuance.

Chairman Shostrom made a motion to recommend a continuance because current inconsistencies and lack of detail on the plans make it too hard to figure out if the proposal meets applicable criteria. Without accurate information, the Historic Commission can not make an evaluation of the proposal’s mass, bulk and scale as it relates to the applicable standards. Recommend submitting revised plans to include the following items:

1.      Need consistency between plan views and elevations

2.      Show change in design of the corner building

3.      Show architectural details

4.      Enhance sense of entry on Building 1.  Also, show ALL entrances on the elevation views.

5.      Provide description of hard materials such as stucco finish, brick type, etc.

6.      Provide sections of the exterior walls in order to show materials, windows, trim, and overhang.

7.      Recommend increasing the size of the 3^rd story step-back on the corner of Building 2. (Currently 2 feet). A cascade effect would lessen the impact of the 3^rd story on the Helman Street side to provide a better transition with the residences on the West side of Helman.

8.      The 3^rd story needs a top or cornice added for compatibility.

Mr. Saladoff seconded the motion.  The vote was unanimous with Ms. Owens-Stevenson abstaining.

DISCUSSION ITEM(S):

Planning Action #2005-01674

11 First Street

Design Modifications

Bill Emerson

Mr. Emerson explained to the Commissioners that the property owner is concerned about the cost of the building and they are looking at cost cutting changes to the original design.  One proposal is to change the brick veneer exterior to a brick textured plaster or possibly stucco.  Another alternative is to reduce the building size to two stories instead of three.

Mr. Saladoff and Mr. Whitford felt the exterior architectural design proportions would be off if just reduced to a two-story.  The design elements such as the column widths and cornice height would need to be adjusted to the new scale of the building.

There was consensus among the Commissioners that they were OK with the plaster or plaster-brick exterior, however, Chairman Shostrom stated he would have to see the completed design before making comment.

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:

2. Project Assignments for Planning Actions

C.     Lithia Fountain Repair – No Report

D.     Historic Reconnaissance Survey Status – No Report

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

NEW BUSINESS

ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

1.      Mr. Whitford passed out an invitation from the Southern Oregon Historical Society for tours of their facilities.

2.      Chairman Shostrom asked about the status of the Demolition Ordinance changes.  Ms. Harris said the City Council postponed action until the Legal department and the Historic Commission could review it.

3.      Mr. Skibby reported that he had been told by a homeowner that they were unable to get insurance on their house because it was on the National Historic Register.  He said Tom Giordano had checked with Allstate Insurance and was told they don’t insure because of the yearly Open House requirement.  Mr. Whitford stated that his home is on the historic register and he has had no problem insuring it through his insurance company.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

The next Historic Commission meeting will be on September 6, 2006 at 7:00 pm in the Siskiyou Room.

ADJOURNMENT

With a motion by Mr. Saladoff and a second by Chairman Shostrom, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m.