HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-04-07 Historic PACKET
HISTORIC COMMISSIONELECTRONICMEETING
AGENDA
April 7,2021 6PM
I.6:00PM -REGULAR MEETING –CALL TO ORDER
II.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Historic Commission electronic meeting of March 3,2021.
III.PUBLIC FORUM
IV.COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT
Councilor Moran
V.PLANNING ACTION REVIEW
PLANNING ACTION:PA-T2-2021-00027-Continuance
SUBJECT PROPERTY:599 East Main Street
APPLICANT/OWNER:Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for
Livni Family Trust (Gil Livni, Trustee)
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to modify the existing building at
599 East Main Street including converting the former church to office use and adding a new entry.
The application also includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit as it involves the expansion of
an existing non-conforming development. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial;
ZONING: C-1; MAP: 39 1E 09AC;TAX LOT #: 7600
PLANNING ACTION:PA-T1-2020-00145
SUBJECT PROPERTY:912 Siskiyou Blvd.
OWNER/APPLICANT: Kimber Bishop
DESCRIPTION:A request for Site Design Review approval for an exterior change to an
individually listed historic structure on the Nation Register of Historic Places and for the
addition of a second residential unit. The proposal includes a large addition to the rear of the
structure for a new master suite, as well as the construction of a two car garage with a
second dwelling above. The application includes a request to remove two trees; a 35” DBH
Cedar, and a 10” DBH Japanese maple.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Multi-
Family Residential;ZONING:R-2; ASSESSOR’S MAP #:391E 09 DA; TAX LOT:6600
VI.DISCUSSION ITEMS
Historic Preservation Awards –May 20, 2021 @12PM via Zoom
o Timeline for how things will run during awards ceremony.
VII.OLD BUSINESS
None
VIII.ADJOURNMENT
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
ELECTRONIC MEETING
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
March 3, 2021
Community Development/Engineering Services Building –Electronic Meeting
CALL TO ORDER:
Shostromcalled the electronic meeting to order at6:05pm.
Commissioners
Council Liaison:
Present:
ShostromShaun Moran
WhitfordStaff Present:
SwinkMaria Harris; Planning Dept.
Von ChamierRegan Trapp; Secretary
Hovenkamp
Emery
Commissioners Absent:Skibby
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Whitford/Swink m/sto approve minutesfor February 3, 2021.Voice vote. ALL AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC FORUM:
There was no one wishing to speak.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT:
Council Liaison Moran gave the report. Items discussed were:
An email received from Ms. Brown regarding a potential award for a property being cleaned up on Church Street. Harris to reach
out to Ms. Brown regarding her question.
The rate study with a financial consultant to update rate modeling forecasts for the water and wastewater enterprise funds. This
will allow Council to fully understand impacts to the fund and provide an avenue to move forward with finalizing an update tothe
Food and Beverage Ordinance.
PLANNING ACTION REVIEW:
PLANNING ACTION:PA-T1-2021-00141
SUBJECT PROPERTY:599 East Main Street
APPLICANT/OWNER:Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for
Livni Family Trust (Gil Livni, Trustee)
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to modify the existing building at 599 East Main Street including
converting the former church to office use and adding a new entry. The application also includes a request for a Conditional
Use Permit as it involves the expansion of an existing non-conforming development. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; MAP: 39 1E 09AC;TAX LOT #: 7600
Shostrom met with Harris and Mr. Livni regarding the project,prior to the Historic Commission meeting.
Harris gavea detailedstaff report for PA-T1-2021-00141. She announced that there were a couple of details regardingthe
plans that need to be confirmed with the applicant.
Shostrom opened the public hearing to the applicants.
1
Amy Gunter, applicant’s representative, addressed the Commission regarding this project. The proposal is to make
substantial exterior changes to the church to fix many years of damage. Window, door, and siding changes were discussedas
well as a change of use to accommodatea larger occupancy rating for tenants. Ms. Gunter went on to say, because of the
change of use on this space, the parking will not be an issue. She emphasized that it will be a great addition to Ashland’s
office/business inventory.
Gil Livni, developer, and owner of 599 E. Main spoke in detail about the project. Mr.Livni stated that the position of the
entrance doors (in the corner)works for ADA and exiting for groups of people. Mr. Livni wanted the tower to be more of a
feature of the building and wanted to soften the look of the front façade and maybe add a bike rack or planters. He pointed out
that the floor plans in the Commission packet were incorrect and needed to be updated.
Shostrom closed the public hearing and opened to the Commission for discussion.
Ms. Harris read the email comment from Mrs. Levison into the record. (See exhibit A)
Commission requests further information and would like to continuePA-T2-2021-00002until April’s meeting.
Shostrom re-opened the public hearing to the applicants.
Ms. Gunter requested that the record be left openfor further submittals and comments.
Shostrom/Hovenkampto continue(with below recommendations)PA-T1-2021-0014,leaving the record open.
Applicant will need to submit revised plans for the April meeting. Voice vote. ALL AYES. Motion passed.
Recommendations for PA-T1-2021-00141:
The HistoricCommissionrecommendscontinuingtheapplicationtoallowthefollowingitems tobeaddressed.
The HistoricCommissionwasgenerallypositiveaboutthebuildingdesign as shownin thecolorarchitectural renderings.
However, theCommissionwasunabletodeterminewhethertheproposalisconsistentwith theapplicabledesignstandards
becausethebuilding detailsare notclearintheelevationsor thereisaninconsistencybetweenthefloorplansand
architectural renderings(i.e., colordrawingsofbuilding).
The siteplanandelevationsare notreadablewithalldrawingscombinedononepage(i.e.,site plan,elevations,
floorplans)andarenottoscaleas requiredby18.5.2.040.Pleasesubmitplansandelevations thatare scaled
for printingon11” x17”paper.Alsosee crosssectionrequirementsin 18.5.2.040.B.4.d.
The floorplanshowsadoor facing E. MainSt.butthearchitecturalrenderings donot.Pleaseclarifythe
locationofthemainbuilding entranceandshowtheproposedentrance(s)ontheelevationsandfloorplans.
Concernedaboutuseof brickforthebaseofbuilding andhowthebrickwill align with existingwindowanddoor
openings.
Include detailsonwindowanddoortypeandsize, sidingandtrim typeandsize,andotherspecifics about
otherexteriorbuildingmaterials.
The eastelevationis alsovisible fromE.MainSt. TheCommissioncommentedthatit wasdifficult tosee
wherethewindowsare locatedontheeastelevation.
The Commissiondiscussedtheproposed“tower” elementof thefrontentryfeaturein relationtotheeast
elevation.Somememberssuggestedthatthetower featureneedstobedifferentiatedontheeastelevation,
ratherthanusingdifferent buildingmaterialsonthenorth
2
(stucco) andeast(horizontalsiding)elevations.One suggestionthatwas discussed iswrapping the
stuccothatis usedonthenorthelevationofthe“tower”aroundontheeastelevationforthedepth
of theentranceorthesamedistanceas the“tower” treatmentonthewest elevation.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Historic Preservation Awards –May 20, 2021 @12PM via Zoom
The discussion included how the presentation would run and how long the awards recipients would talk.
Shostrom will see what the interest would be for Mayor Akins to be involved in the awards ceremony. A
draft of awards ceremony willbe sent to Commissioners in their packet and blurbs will be included.
Each Commissioner will read aloud the blurbs that were written by them. Von Chamier to read
Giordano’s blurb.
Cemetery-Self guided toursto be planned forFriday May 21, 2021so that Shostrom can
announce them during the zoom awards ceremony.
Commission Vacancies and Membership
The Commission is committed to talking to at least 2 people in regards to volunteering for the
Historic Commission.
Shostrom to speak on behalf of theHistoric Commissionat the City Council meeting in May(this
falls in line with Historic Preservation week).
ADJOURNMENT:
Next meeting is scheduled April 7, 2021at6:00pmvia Zoom.
There being no other items to discuss, the meeting adjournedat8:00pm
Respectfully submitted by Regan Trapp
3
EXHIBIT A
From:Maria Harris
To:Regan Trapp
Subject:FW: ADVISORY COMMISSION HEARING TESTIMONY
Date:Tuesday, March 02, 2021 2:30:08 PM
Regan,
Please forward this comment to the Historic Commsision.
Maria Harris, AICP
Planning Manager
City of Ashland, Community Development Department
20 E. Main St., Ashland, OR 97520
541.552.2045 Tel
800.735.2900 TTY
541.552.2050 Fax
This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure
and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541.552.2045. Thank you.
From: Diane Levison <dilevison@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 2:24 PM
To: Planning Commission - Public Testimony <PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us>
Subject: ADVISORY COMMISSION HEARING TESTIMONY
\[EXTERNAL SENDER\]
My husband and I own anAshlander condoon East Main Street where my mother used to
live, but we now live in California. Not until today--March 2--did I receive your mailed "Notice
of Application" for the proposed church property conversion on the corner of East Main and
Fifth Street. Your Notice required any e-mailed comment to be submitted by 10 a.m. on
March 1--obviously animpossibility for me in this case.
I would hope that my only concern could still be considered, and that is the question of
parking. If the property is to be used for office/assembly space that would involve daily use
and parking, surely there should be a requirement that the applicant provide parking for the
proposed use. The prior church use entailed need for parking only on Sundays, and this
proposed use is another matter.
Thank you for your consideration.
Diane Levison
1268 Drake Circle
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Planning Application Review
March 3, 2021
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2021-00141
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 599 E. Main St.
APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning and Development Services, LLC for Livni Family Trust (Gil Livni, Trustee)
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to modify the existing building at 599 East Main Street
including converting the former church to use as office/assembly space and adding a new entry. The application also
includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit as it involves the alteration of an existing non-conforming development
where no off-street parking is available, and Street Tree Removal Permits to remove and replace two Callery Pear street
trees (10.2-inch & 12.7-inch DBH) in the park row planting strip along East Main Street.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; 39 1E
09AC; TAX LOT: 7600
Recommendation:
The Historic Commission recommends continuing the application to allow the following items to be
addressed.
The Historic Commission was generally positive about the building design as shown in the color
architectural renderings. However, the Commission was unable to determine whether the proposal is
consistent with the applicable design standards because the building details are not clear in the
elevations or there is an inconsistency between the floor plans and architectural renderings (i.e., color
drawings of building).
The site plan and elevations are not readable with all drawings combined on one page (i.e.,
site plan, elevations, floor plans) and are not to scale as required by 18.5.2.040. Please submit
plans and elevations Also see cross section
requirements in 18.5.2.040.B.4.d.
The floor plan shows a door facing E. Main St. but the architectural renderings do not. Please
clarify the location of the main building entrance and show the proposed entrance(s) on the
elevations and floor plans.
Concerned about use of brick for the base of building and how the brick will align with existing
window and door openings.
Include details on window and door type and size, siding and trim type and size, and other
specifics about other exterior building materials.
The east elevation is also visible from E. Main St. The Commission commented that it was
difficult to see where the windows are located on the east elevation.
of the front entry feature in relation
to the east elevation. Some members suggested that the tower feature needs to be
differentiated on the east elevation, rather than using different building materials on the north
1
(stucco) and east (horizontal siding) elevations. One suggestion that was discussed is
wrapping the stucco that is used on the on the east
elevation
west elevation.
2
March 10, 2021
Re: Planning Action #PA-T1-2021-00141
599 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Planning Department:
I have never responded to a Notice of Application before, having lived at the same address for thirty-
three years and receiving numerous notices, but I feel very strongly about this particular planning
action.
599 East Main Street, the neighborhood, and the City of Ashland will benefit greatly from the repair,
remodeling, and new, positive use of this property, possibly involving increased tax revenue to the city.
It is now unsafe, dilapidated, and sadly, the dictionary definition of eyesore.
There is a need for safe shelter for those without homes that now gather, rest, and sleep on this
property. Sleeping exposed to the elements near streets that have heavy pedestrian and vehicle traffic
is not the answer, nor safe.
This property will become an asset, improving and beautifying the whole neighborhood, and the City of
Ashland. This location is essentially the introduction for many people to what is the heart of Ashland.
All people who travel on East Main Street as the main thoroughfare can appreciate the transformation
into an attractive building, put to a constructive purpose.
On a personal note, Mr. GIL Livni has shown me his community spirit, that he cares about this
neighborhood and his neighbors. My house is on the opposite corner at 585 E Main Street and was
placed on the National Register of Historic Places (George H. Palethorpe House) in 1999. Built in 1888, it
is in disrepair. I am a single, elderly woman, who after making some changes as recommended by the
National Register, lacked the funds for further major repairs.
I am now attempting to rectify the deferred maintenance, starting with the roof. A chance meeting with
Mr. Livni was a lifesaver. He offered to talk to roofers, and found one whose estimate was 33% less than
other estimates I had been given. This will allow me to start with other repairs. He even drove to a
roofing supplier to bring back a sample of the shingles I had referenced. For a very busy general
contractor overseeing large projects on a much grander scale, to me, this shows unusual compassion
kindness, and caring, and reflects his personal values.
In short, I whole heartedly endorse, and have trust in, all aspects of this planning action.
Thank you.
Victoria Vannice
Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit Review
For Exterior Modificationsto a
Non-Contributing Historic Structure
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS to supplement findings dated January 19, 2021
Subject Property
Property Address: 599 East Main Street
Map & Tax Lot: 39 1E 09AC; Tax lot 7600
Comprehensive
Plan Designation: Commercial
Zoning: C-1
Adjacent Zones: C-1, R-2
Railroad Historic District
Request:
The proposal isto convert the structure into amodern office building that includes an
approximately 1,900 square foot assembly or group space that is part of the office uses within
the structure.
The purpose is to not intensify the recognizeduse of thesanctuaryportion of the structure as
assembly/group occupancy, but the adapt the large area, large occupancy rated structure into a
community asset.
The proposal seeks to allow for uses that have been historically allowed (offices and a 1,900
square foot gathering space). This proposal seeks to allow for use of the building as an office
tenancy and allows for the tenants to utilize the space to host business associated conferences
and other similar events. These ‘events’ would be more limited than a busy Saturday/Sunday
event space,56 weeksa year ata thriving religious institution that included offices, pre-school
and community space.
The property owner is making substantial building upgrades on the interior that would be
required for a larger occupancy rated structure with assembly occupancy areas and mixed uses.
The current church building lacks those features. Additionally, the modifications are a substantial
financial investment into the structure, modernizing the historic building and beautifying a
Commercial zoned neighborhood,corner property.
HistoricandProposedUses:
Theexistingbuildinghasthe1,900squarefootsanctuaryareaandthelargerbuildingareathat
contains office areas that operated during ‘typical’ office hours throughout the week. The church
also held larger ‘events’ every Sunday and often Friday and Saturday (weddings, funerals,
community events, etc.) with weekly community meeting times and larger group events
throughout the calendar year. A weekly preschool with approximately 30 students and three
teachers operated at the church building for many years.
The proposal increases occupancy accessibility provisions and safety measures through the
installation of accessible routes, accessible and separated restroom facilities, and fire sprinkler
system. The property owner and the potential tenant are not intending for a concert venue to
replace the previous church functions but wants to assure the building is able to retain uses
allowed as permitted uses in the C-1 zone. These include the permitted use a commercially zoned
property as ‘entertainment’ which has been on a separate tax lot with no historical evidence of
on-site parking. Anticipated assembly events would be for the tenants of the office space. One
of the companies courted for tenancy has business conference events and business supporting
events. The company is a technology-based industry and envisions the space being used to help
promote their and similar businesses to boost the economy and technology advancement for
Ashland business sector.
Based on the photographic evidenceprovided bythe previous occupants, there were between
224-244 seats in the 1,900 square foot sanctuary area. There is approximately 750 square feet of
office on the second floor and approximately 1,980 square feet of office space in the daylight
basement.
The church was constructed prior to 1928 – the earliest Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps indicate a
church building on the property in 1911. No on-site parking has been provided for the church use
since its development more than a century ago.
The primary focus of the proposal the substantial alterations the exterior of the structure to
remove an unsightly and poorly constructed addition and materials, with the addition of a
pedestrian oriented entry area.Additionally,there are substantial interior changesand structural
modifications tothe building are necessaryand allow for the use of the assembly occupancy
space as a lower intensity office space that may have assembly type events on occasion.
The entry door is proposed to be oriented towards the intersection of Fifth and East Main Streets.
The location of theentry dooris toprovideadequate clearancewithin the space for the stairs
and a manlifttothe main sanctuary level. This new entry area will provide access to the stairway
‘tower’ on the east side of the entry lobby.
The proposed brick base is a dark red “Klamath” brick. The revised exterior elevations and the
section drawings better locate thebrick,andthewatertable in proximity to the windows.
Additional details on the materials and dimensions are provided.
Transportation Impacts from the Conditional Use Permit:
The use of commercial property as acommercial use in the zone will not have a greater adverse
effect on the livability of the immediate impact area which is primarily commercially zoned. The
proposal is to increase the area of the building slightly to provide a pedestrian entrance on the
East Main and Fifth Street frontage. The property has no parking and the modification to the non-
conforming site necessitates a conditional use permit.
The target use of the zone for the site is a 1,742 square foot office building. An office structure
of 1,742 would require 3.48 or four (4) parking spaces.
The proposal is to retain the existing structure and the existing occupancy rating would require
61 parking spaces based on the number of seats within the sanctuary space where no on-site
parking spaces are provided.
The existing structure is 4,620 squarefeetin area. The portion of the building that was used as
assembly occupancy is just over 1,800 square feet of the building as seatedassemblyoccupancy
(1 sq. per 15 sq. foot floor area) anoccupancy of approximately126 persons is permitted per
building code requirements. An occupancy of 126 which would require 31 parking spaces.
In the event that the entire structure is office space, the structure requires 9.24 or 10 parking
spaces. This is more than twice what would be required to be provide if the site was developed
with the FAR required for the ‘target use’ of the zone, but to bring the area of the building into
conformance, more than 50 percent of the structure would need to be removed.
The property has 74-feet of frontage on Fifth Street, after removing 20-feet from frontage, there
is 54-feet remaining. This 54-feet could provide two on-street parking credits. In no case can the
required number of parking spaces for any use, not even a residential use could be on the
property without the granting of the conditional use permit to continue the non-conforming
development of the commercially zoned site.
The Conditional Use Permit is to allow for the expansion of an existing, non-conforming structure
on a commercially zoned property that has no parking. The use of the structure was a religious
institution, that use predated the zoning code of the city thus there isn’t a ‘conditional use
permit’ approval of the church use of the property as require per today’s land development
ordinance.
The property has been occupied with a large area, numerous occupancy potential, site filling,
church structure for nearly 100 years. There has never been parking associated with the large
occupancy,largeareachurchstructure.
According to the records the Church shared with the propertyowner the church hostednot only
traditional Sunday Services, Sunday School, all large denominational holiday services that drew
larger crowds than the typical 100+ Sunday worshipers. There is photographic evidence of a 244-
person occupancy in the Sanctuary area alone.
There was a weekday preschool with approximately 30 students and three teachers. There were
anywhere between three to five office and staff of the church at the property during the
weekdays. Additionally, the church had a robust ‘class’ program. They offered art classes, and
held art shows, there were musical classes and recital events. The church buildings was used for
other community gatherings held in the sanctuary space.
All of these uses occurred at 599 East Main Street, where there is no on-site parking. All of the
users parked on-street or walked from the neighborhood. This proposal does not increase the
occupancy of the property.
Though thechurch useshavebeenreducedin the recent years, there is nothing that would
prevent a new/revived church occupant with the same anticipated occupancy from reusing the
space without the proposed substantial site upgrades.
The proposed adaptive reuse of the structure as an office space that is allowed to holdevents
relatedto their business is no different thana law office hosting a law conference, or a real estate
office hosting a training event, and is less impactful to a neighborhood than a 5X a week
preschool, in a church that held weekly evening events, weekly Sunday worship, funerals,
weddings and community events that fulfill the mission of the church or was sponsored by a
church member.
This is the same expected transportation to the site for the proposed professional officeuse. The
professional office uses will have typical office hours and likely M- F operationswith little
weekend impacts. Whereas the church had weekly pre-school and office traffic inaddition to
evening classes and events with a heavy impact on weekends. The transportation and parking
impacts from the office will be more predictable and consistent when compared to a church that
could have numerous large person events through out the week.
Where no previous bicycle parking was provided, the proposal is to provide covered and
uncovered secure bicycle parking facilities, increasing the transportation options.
Additionally,the exterior modifications will greatly enhance the pedestrian experience on East
MainStreetandFifthStreets.TherewillbepedestrianorientedentrancesonEastMainandat
therearofthebuildingorientedtoFifthStreet.Boththesemodificationsincreaseconformity
with the Site Design Standards and encourage pedestrian use of the structure.
The property is in close proximity todowntown, shopping at Safeway, the Library, other
commercial businesses, yet outside of the area that is typically heavily parked, Oak/Pioneer/First
to Fourth, Lithia Way to A Street during the tourist season.
Based on numerous site visits, photographic evidence from previous street view programs, there
is adequate on-street parking on along the properties 74-feet of frontage adjacent to Fifth Street,
54 feet of which is available for on-street parking. There is parking across Fifth Street as the
residence there has alley parking. There is on-street parking on C Street, and on Sherman Street,
across East Main Street. Ample on-street parking is available within 200-feet of the structure.
The site has a Walkscore of91. According toWalkscore.com, 599EMain Street is a“walkers
paradise”and daily errands do not require acar. The property is centrally located and is within a
20-min walk of neighborhoods south of SOU, areas all the way to the northwest in the areas west
of Glenn Street and south of Hersey Street, the Fordyce Street neighborhoods. Additionally, the
site scores an 84 on Bike score and is considered Very Bikeable with biking convenient for most.
www.walkscore.com.599-e-main=st-ashland-or-97520. East Main Street has a designated bike
lane acrossthefrontage oftheproperty. Theability for residents that work or patronize the
property to walk or bicycle from nearly every major neighborhood in town increases the
likelihood of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and that a finding can be made that the use of the
property as an professionaloffice and the proposed modifications to the structure to enhance
the pedestrian and bicycle experience are improvements to the multi-modal functionality of the
site and that short of removal of 50 percent of the structure to accommodate parking, there are
The proposal does not increase the occupancy of the structure and is a decrease in overall
occupancy of the sanctuary space.
48 Fifth Street:
The property at 48 Fifth Street is a separate, legal lot of record. The property is occupied by an
approximately 1,200 SF commercial structure. Though previously owned in common by the
church and presently owned in common, that was not always the case. Additionally, the
property’s parking area adjacenttothe alleywas required when the structureat48 Fifth Street
was constructed are notassociated withthis application.
Per thedecision of PA-1993-00123 the uses were evaluatedseparately in fact the staff report
states “no additional capacity, in terms of additional seating in the sanctuary, was being added as
part of this application, therefore, there was essentially no change in the use.” The report goes on
to note that the parking spaces shown adjacent to the Fellowship Hall were not required to be
improved because there was not a change in the use. Though the previous uses were in common
and there were associations made, the parking for the structure at 48 Fifth Street isrequired for the
functionality of 48 Fifth Street as a commercial use in the commercial zoning district. The proposed
parking in 1993 appears to have been adequate parking for an approximately 1200 SF office space
and cannot be reallocated to a separate property that is no longer associated with the uses at 599 E
Main Street.
Attachments:
PA-1993-00123
1994 Building Permit
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDINGS & ORDERS
October 12, 1993
PLANNING ACTION 93-123 is a request for a Site Review to construct a fellowship hall to
the rear of the existing sanctuary. The existing structure will be demolished at 48 Fifth
Street.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial; Zoning: C-1; Assessor's Map #: 9AC;
Tax Lot #: 7500.
APPLICANT: Foursquare Church
On Wednesday, September 22, 1993, an administrative hearing was held in the Planning
Office to review this application. In attendance were Bill Molnar, Associate Planner and
Planning Director John McLaughlin serving as Hearings Officer.
McLaughlin reviewed the request, noting that the application involved the demolition of
an existing building, and replacing it with a residential-style building that will serve as a
fellowship hall for the church. McLaughlin said that no additional capacity, in terms of
additional seating in the sanctuary, was being added as part of this application, therefore,
there was essentially no change in the use.
The building to be demolished is listed as "compatible" on the Historic Inventory, and
therefore it can be removed without City Council approval. The replacement design
continues on with the residential character established along Fifth Street, even though the
property is zoned commercial.
The design is reminiscent of Craftsman, with the lower roof pitch and the porch-style of
covered walkway from the church. There is an entry directly toward Fifth Street,
maintaining the residential character.
McLaughlin said that the design was appropriate for the area, and that it had been
reviewed by the Historic Commission Review Board, and they had concurred with the
design.
Improved landscaping was shown on an additional plan, with some parking located off
the alley. Since the application does not involve an increase in the intensity of the use, the
City could not require the improvement of the parking spaces. The applicants had
indicated that the spaces would be landscaped, with a gravel parking surface.
McLaughlin said the applicants would be required to sign in favor of future alley
improvements, but not improve the alley at this time.
McLaughlin then reviewed the criteria for approval of a site review, which are as follows:
A.All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B.All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C.The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for
implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and
will be provided to and through the subject property.
McLaughlin stated that given that there were no increases in the intensity of the use as a
church, and that the property was zoned commercial next to a residential area, this design
was appropriate, and based upon the submitted information, found that it complied with
the criteria for approval of a site review.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions and on the proposal being subject to each of
the following conditions, we approve Planning Action 93-123. Further, if any one or more
of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then
Planning Action 93-123 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached
to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified here.
2) That the property owner sign in favor of future improvements to the alley.
3) That all necessary building permits be obtained prior to the commencement of
construction on the site.
4) That all proposed landscaping be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the building.
5) That the parking area be surfaced with a 3/4" minus crushed rock, or equivalent,
prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building.
If no appeal is filed, this request will become final when reviewed by the Ashland
Planning Commission on October 12, 1993.
__________________________________ __________________________
John McLaughlin, Planning Director Date
BTIMBOE-!PS!:8631
6::!F/!NBJO!TUSFFU
TBODUVBSZ!SFNPEFM!'!BEEJUJPO
BTIMBOE-!PS!:8631
6::!F/!NBJO!TUSFFU
PG!21
TBODUVBSZ!SFNPEFM!'!BEEJUJPO
3
TIFFU!
TIFFU!!UJUMF
9(.7#
O
27(.7#48(.5#
BTIMBOE-!PS!:8631
6::!F/!NBJO!TUSFFU
PG!21
TBODUVBSZ!SFNPEFM!'!BEEJUJPO
4
TIFFU!
TIFFU!!UJUMF
26
25
24
23
BTIMBOE-!PS!:8631
6::!F/!NBJO!TUSFFU
PG!21
TBODUVBSZ!SFNPEFM!'!BEEJUJPO
5
TIFFU!
TIFFU!!UJUMF
G
EPXO
BTIMBOE-!PS!:8631
6::!F/!NBJO!TUSFFU
PG!21
TBODUVBSZ!SFNPEFM!'!BEEJUJPO
6
TIFFU!
TIFFU!!UJUMF
BTIMBOE-!PS!:8631
6::!F/!NBJO!TUSFFU
PG!21
TBODUVBSZ!SFNPEFM!'!BEEJUJPO
7
TIFFU!
TIFFU!!UJUMF
Nby
3(.1#26(.4#7#
°21(.1#°23(.1#°21(.1#
BTIMBOE-!PS!:8631
6::!F/!NBJO!TUSFFU
TBODUVBSZ!SFNPEFM!'!BEEJUJPO
BTIMBOE-!PS!:8631
6::!F/!NBJO!TUSFFU
TBODUVBSZ!SFNPEFM!'!BEEJUJPO
BTIMBOE-!PS!:8631
6::!F/!NBJO!TUSFFU
TBODUVBSZ!SFNPEFM!'!BEEJUJPO
BTIMBOE-!PS!:8631
6::!F/!NBJO!TUSFFU
TBODUVBSZ!SFNPEFM!'!BEEJUJPO
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
TTY: 1-800-735-2900
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION:PA-T1-2020-00145
SUBJECT PROPERTY:912 Siskiyou Blvd.
OWNER/APPLICANT: Kimber Bishop
DESCRIPTION:A request for Site Design Review approval for an exterior change to an individually listed historic
structure on the Nation Register of Historic Places and for the addition of a second residential unit. The proposal
includes a large addition to the rear ofthe structure for a new master suite, as well as the construction of a two car
garage with a second dwelling above. The application includes a request to remove two trees; a 35” DBH Cedar,
and a 10” DBH Japanese maple.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Multi-Family Residential;ZONING:
R-2;ASSESSOR’S MAP #:391E09 DA;TAX LOT:6600
NOTE:The Ashland Historic Commission will review this Planning Action at an electronic public hearing on Wednesday, April 7, 2021at 6:00
PM. See page 2 of this notice for information about participating in the electronic public hearing.
NOTE:The Ashland Tree Commission will review this Planning Action at an electronic public hearing on Thursday, April 8, 2021at 6:00 PM. See
page 2 of this notice for information about participating in the electronic public hearing.
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:March 29, 2021
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:March 12, 2021
OVER
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\S\\Siskiyou\\Siskiyou_912\\Siskiyou_912_PA-T1-2021-00145\\Noticing\\Siskiyou_912_PA-T1-2021-00145_NOC.docx
Historic and Tree Commission Meetings
Notice is hereby given that the Historic and Tree Commissionwill hold an electronic public hearing on the above described
planning action on the meeting date and time shown on Page 1.
Anyone wishing to submit written comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.uswith
the subject line “Advisory Commission Hearing Testimony” by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, April 5, 2021.
If the applicant wishes to provide a rebuttal to the testimony, they can submit the rebuttal via e-mail to PC-public-
testimony@ashland.or.uswith the subject line “Advisory Commission Hearing Testimony” by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, April 6,
2021. Written testimony received by these deadlines will be available for Historic and Tree Commissionersto review before the
hearing and will be included in the meeting minutes.
If you wish to virtually attend or listen to the Historic and Tree Commission meetings, send an email to PC-public-
by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, April 5, 2021. In order to virtually attend or listen to the commission
testimony@ashland.or.us
meeting, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email “Advisory Commission Participant
Request”, 2) include your name, 3) specify the date and commission meeting you wish to virtually attend or listen to, 4) specify if
you will be participating by computer or telephone, and 5) the name you will use if participating by computer or the telephone
number you will use if participating by telephone. Please note, participants that sign up to virtually attend or listen to a commission
meeting will not be allowed to speak during the meeting.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact
the City Administrator’s office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting
will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I).
The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted on Page 1 of this notice.
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, application materials are provided online and comments will be accepted by email.
Alternative arrangements for reviewing the application or submitting comments can be made by contacting (541) 488-5305
.
or planning@ashland.or.us
A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria are available online at “What’s
Happening in my City” at https://gis.ashland.or.us/developmentproposals/.Copies of application materialswill be provided
at reasonable cost, if requested. Under extenuating circumstances, application materials may be requested to be reviewed
in-person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre-arranged
appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing planning@ashland.or.us.
orto the City of
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to planning@ashland.or.us
Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown on Page
1.
Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal.Upon
determination of completeness, a notice is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application
which allows for a 14day comment period. After the comment period and not more than 45 days from the application being
deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice of decision is mailed to
the same properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staff’s decision
must be madein writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC
18.5.1.050.G)
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice.Oregon law states that failure to raise an
objection concerning this application, by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an
opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue.
Failureto specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that
criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with
sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Aaron Andersonat 541-488-5305 or
aaron.anderson@ashland.or.us.
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\S\\Siskiyou\\Siskiyou_912\\Siskiyou_912_PA-T1-2021-00145\\Noticing\\Siskiyou_912_PA-T1-2021-00145_NOC.docx
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
18.5.2.050
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A.Underlying Zone:The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to:building and
yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable
standards.
B. Overlay Zones:The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
C. Site Development and Design Standards:The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and DesignStandards of part 18.4, except as
provided by subsection E, below.
D. City Facilities:The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water,
sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject
property.
E.Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards:The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design
Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist.
1.There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect
of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and
approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum
which would alleviate the difficulty.; or
2.There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves
the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards.
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\S\\Siskiyou\\Siskiyou_912\\Siskiyou_912_PA-T1-2021-00145\\Noticing\\Siskiyou_912_PA-T1-2021-00145_NOC.docx
Received 3.4.2021
Johnson Bishop Real Estate LLC
Received 3.4.2021
Please note: The pre-application showed the owner as Bishop Johnson LLC, a Washington State based
corporation. The LLC managers have relocated from WA to Oregon and transferred the ownership from
Bishop Johnson LLC (now dissolved) to an Oregon based LLC, Johnson Bishop Real Estate LLC, with the
same managers.
Kimber Bishop signed as the owner, being one of the managers. Her full legal name is Kimberly A. Bishop,
but she is known professionally as Kimber Bishop and uses signature as Kimber Bishop commonly.
Received 3.4.2021
¸
¸
¸
¸
Received 3.4.2021
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
Received 3.4.2021
Received 3.4.2021
Site Review Application for Residential Development
Supplemental Narrative
Property Location: 912 Siskiyou Blvd
Requestor and Owner: Kimber Bishop
Architect: Bob Carroll
18.5.2.050Approval Criteria
A.Underlying Zone.The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of
the underlying zone (part18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard
setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building
height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards.
Zoning:The property is zoned Low Density Multiple Family (R-2). The base density of the property
is 4.6 dwelling units. The proposal adds one additional dwelling unit (over the garage) which means
the property will have 2 dwelling units, within the allowed 4.6 unit density.
Floor Area: The planning application is required to include the gross floor area of the existing house,
the gross floor area of each building after the proposed changes, the gross floor area of the proposed
new residential unit, and the MPFA calculations (see below). The required information is shown
below:
Lot Coverage: The lot coverage maximum allowed is 65%.Lot coverage is defined as anything
other than landscape materials. As a result, any gravel areas such as driveways, decks, patios and
pools all count as lot coverage.
The lot coverage calculation is shown below and is within the allowed maximum.
Received 3.4.2021
Additional Requirements:
18.2.3.120 Dwelling in Historic District Overlay
Manufactured homes are prohibited.The proposal does not include any manufactured home
components. (18.2.3.120.A)
The proposalconforms to the requirements for maximum permitted floor area standards in
section 18.2.5.070, as requires in (18.2.3.120.B).
The proposaldoes not add any heightto the existing structure and the new garage unit does not
exceed a height of the existing home(18.2.3.120.C).
The proposal does not include retail commercial uses and is not located in the Railroad Historic
Overlay.(18.2.3.120.D)
18.2.3.150 Home Occupation
It is unclear to the owner how this section of requirements apply in the current situation with
Covid-19 which has required many employees to transition from working in an office to working
from home. If this current situation continues after the completion of the proposed project then
theowner will continue working from home for current employer. However, this working from
home will not involve a separate business, any employees other than the owner, any foot or car
traffic, etc. To be clear, there is no intent to operate a home occupation business on the property
but current health conditions have forced working from home conditions which may continue for
f
bringing staff back into group office settings.
18.5.7.020Tree Removal Permit Applicability and Review Procedure
Requestor believesatree removal permit is not required, due to these exemptions:
18.5.7.020 C Exempt from Tree Removal Permit
2.Removal oftrees in single-family residential zones on lots occupied only by a single-
family detached dwelling and associated accessory structures where the property is less
than twice the minimum lot size or otherwise ineligible to be partitioned or subdivided,
Received 3.4.2021
except as otherwise regulated by chapter 18.3.10, Physical and Environmental
Constraints Overlay, and chapter 18.3.11, Water Resource Protection Zones (Overlays).
3.Removal of trees in multi-family residential and health care zones on lots occupied
only by a single-family detached dwelling and associated accessory structures where the
property cannot be further developed with additional dwelling units other than an
accessory residential unit, except as otherwise regulated by chapter 18.3.10, Physical and
Environmental Constraints Overlay, and chapter 18.3.11, Water Resource Protection
Zones (Overlays).
The proposal requires removal of5 trees. The property has substantial mature landscaping
including shrubbery on almost the entire boundary of the property, mature trees and hedges
surrounding the house. The trees that will require removal are:
3Pyramidalis Arborvitaelocated in the center of the lot and in the footprint of the
proposedcovered walkway between the existing house and new carriage house/garage.
Owner has discussed the possibility of moving these 3 trees from current location to the
property boundary at the Northeast corner where there is currently a break in the hedges;
landscaper advised that given the size, age, and health of these trees it would be
complicated and unwiseto move them.
1 Douglas Fir located in the footprint of the newgarage. This is a large mature tree but
given the required setbacks there was no realistic way to design around it and achieve the
garage with required parking. The plan is to remove this tree and sell the lumber so it can
be used or to donate the tree to the Jackson County Fuel Committee (JCFC).
1 Japanese Maple located next to the Douglas Fir in the center of the lot. This tree
appears to have been planted as part of a decorative water feature vignette and is now a
very large and beautiful tree. Unfortunately,the location and size of the tree places a
proposed new garage structure.
Attempting to trim the tree around the structure will disfigure it.
Owner is open to planting additionaltreeson the propertyto offset the loss of this tree.
18.2.3.040 Accessory Residential Unit
Accessory residential units are subject to site design review under chapter18.5.2,except
as exempted in subsection18.2.3.040.A, below.
The Garage includes an accessory residential unit >500 sq ft on upper level.The Site Plan shows
4 parking spaces (garage with 2 baysand 2 separate parking spaces)as required inTable
18.4.3.040.Automobile Parking Spaces by Use
3.29.2021
Received
5#!0!23#
5#!0!23#
5#!0!23#
5#!0!23#
5#!0!23#
5#!0!23#
5#!0!23#
29#!0!23#
29#!0!23#
29#!0!23#
29#!0!23#
7#!0!23#
7#!0!23#
5#!0!23#
7#!0!23#
7#!0!23#
29#!0!23#
29#!0!23#
7#!0!23#
29#!0!23#7#!0!23#
29#!0!23#
7#!0!23#
3.29.2021
Received
T
T
T
3.29.2021
Received
VQ
3.29.2021
Received
3.29.2021
Received
3.29.2021
Received
3.29.2021
Received
VQ
3.29.2021
Received
3.29.2021
Received
VQ
3.4.2021
Received
Historically Compatible Residential Addition
Location:692 B Street –Farra-McFarland House 1888 (Primary/Contributing)
Owner:John & Bonnie Rinaldi
Contractor/Builder: The Downey Company
Architect:Carlos Delgado Architecture
This large two-story wood-frame vernacular dwelling was built in 1888. "E. L. Farra of Willow Springs will
have a two story cottage built in the railroad addition. Mr. Tabor of Evans Creek, will do the work." (Tidings,
14-Sep-1888, 3:4) Farra sold the house to Albert E. McFarland, a carpenter, and his wife Abbie in early 1897.
After her husband's death in 1910, Abbie McFarland retained ownership of the property until 1928. In 1948
the house was occupied by CharlesE.Roberson. The Farra-McFarland House was substantially renovated
in the early 1990s with a major addition to the rear, construction of a non-historic second-floor projecting bay
and the application of various exterior detailing. While not entirely consistent with the history of the dwelling,
the house does retain sufficient integrity to relate its historic period of development.
The owners, John & Bonnie Rinaldi have approached the project with a sensitivity toward the aesthetics of
the original historic house while building an addition along theSixth Street frontage. They have left the
historic original building intact by adding on to the rear. The addition is pleasing to look and matches the
siding and trim details of the main house. They listened to input from the Historic Commission to offset the
building slightly from the original structure and have varied the roofline to moderate the length of the addition.
The project benefits from good design by Tom Sager and Carlos Delgado, and benefits from excellent
craftsmanship by Sean Downey.
They have recently removed an out of place second story bay window on the historic façade, restoring the
front of the building to its original appearance.The restoration of the front of the house and the care and
thought put into the addition make this project award worthy
Written by, Bill Emery of the Ashland Historic Commision
Historically Compatible Residential Addition
Location:147 Central Street
Owner:Kerry KenCairn
Contractor/Builder:Michael Hodgin, Coleman Creek
This house was originally built around 1890 by Samuel Phillips. Sometime after that it was purchased and
used as rental property. Shortly after the turn of the century, Daniel Glenn bought the property as a rental,
which he added to other rental properties he owned in the immediate area. He eventually sold the house to
Carroll and Florence Pratt around 1920, who owned it until 1949. However, they too rented the house starting
sometime in the early 1940’s.
In 1985, the house was purchased by Kerry KenCairn, a committed preservationist, who is a past member
of the Ashland Historic Commission. Kerry decided to demolish the dilapidated garage in favor of building a
story and a half addition that would match the gabled original house. Kerry produced the initial drawings of
the addition, after which she enlisted the help of architect, Bruce Richie, to actualize herfinal vision.
The addition is 860 square feet which has a separate entry and small porch that mirrors the entry of the
original house. The first floor includes a mud room entry, half-bath, and living space that opens to the
backyard. A stairway leads to an upper level that includes additional living space and another half-bath. With
slight changes, the new addition could be used as an apartment.
Michael Hodge, of Coleman Creek Construction, was contracted to carry out the demolition of the old garage
andbuild a new historically compatible addition. He was assisted on the project by Brian Dunnegan, a
structural engineer. The project presented some unique challenges. First, the garage had a wall that was
directly adjacent to the neighbor’s property line, which was braced against the neighbor’s house to enable
the pouring of a new concrete slab foundation. Also, during the demolition, it was discovered that the garage
was built with 1’ x 4’ stacked boards, which Michael described as something like Lincoln Logs. There was
considerable effort to build an addition that matched the richly detailed facade of the original house. The new
windows also conformed to the previously replaced, historically compatible window sashes of the existing
house.
This addition merits recognition for the commitment to build a structure that preserves the exterior style and
character of this late 19th century house. As a result of the resourceful collaboration between the owner and
the builder, this project represents a significant contribution to the architectural integrity of the Skidmore
Academy Historic District.
Written by, Beverly Hovenkamp & Dale Shostrom of the Ashland Historic Commission
Civic Award
Awarded to Len Eisenberg
Briscoe Geologic Park
Location:Corner of Laurel and High Streets, adjacent to the old Briscoe Elementary School
Owner:City of Ashland Parks & Recreation Department
Creator:Len Eisenberg with assistance from Kari Gies and the City’s Park & Recreation Department
Construction:Len Eisenberg, City Parks & Recreation Department and many generous community
volunteers who donated materials and provided labor
The City of Ashland’s Historic Commission wishes to honor the “Briscoe Geology Park” with the Civic
Awardfor its design, construction and creation for a unique and educational city park located in the
“Skidmore Historic District “. The Park’s conception was first initiated in 2006 and completed in 2007.
Briscoe Geology Park is a community learning resource and attraction where visitors and students walk
through time to discover how our planet and all life have changed during the 4.6 billion years of earth’s history,
and how Oregon fitsinto the big picture.Dinosaurs and trilobites, cycads, mass extinctions, plate tectonics,
evolution and local geology can all be discovered in three time walks, adjacent to Laurel Street. These time
walks are beautifully displayed with custom tile work,decorative concrete finishes,interpretive signage,
stonework and landscaping. The Park is always open and is part of the streetscape of this neighborhood.
Earth history programs at the Park are available through the North Mountain Park Nature Center.At the
Nature Center, classroom presentations that introduce geologic time and earth history is followed by field
trips to the Geologic Park where students use evidence to answer questions about local geology, trilobites,
dinosaurs, mass extinctions, plate tectonics, and many other aspects of earth history, on an age appropriate
activity sheet.
As well as the educational value, this project is visually outstanding.The quality, craftsmanship, and the
attention to detail of the design elements, such as the stonework, handmade ceramic tiles, concrete finishes,
interpretive signage, selected plantings and overall layout create apositive appearance for this Historic
District and an asset to the city’s park system.
Written by, Tom Giordano of Ashland Historic Commission
Historically Compatible SingleFamily Home
Location:533 Fairview
Owners:Fred andNorma Wright
Architect:Mark Holsman
Contractor:Michael Hodgin,Coleman Creek Construction
In 1983,Fred andNorma Wright bought a home on the corner of Fairview and Union Streets as a rental
property investment. Originally built in 1909, by the Provost family who lived there until their business became
successful and they built their permanent home across the street,the home had suffered from more than one
poorly done remodeling. During the second world war,the home was divided into small rental units and
hadn’t been well built originally.
Two years ago, the Wrights got estimates to replace the roof from more than one roofing contractor and the
contractorsall said they didn’t think the building was worth putting the money into and advised replacing the
structure. After consulting with the city and Historic Commission,they decided to tear the old house down
and build a replacement. Sometimes opportunities come knocking! The Wright’s grandson, Mark Holsman,
a young architect living in Ashland at the time,was excited to be able to design a home to be built in Ashland’s
Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic District.
One thing the Wrights were dedicated to was that the new home needed to blend in with the neighboring
homes in the Historic District. Working with the Wright’s friend, Michael Hodgin of Coleman Creek
Construction, Mark Holsman designed a home that is very traditional and blends in perfectly withthe
neighborhood,butis very contemporary and twenty-first century on the inside.
Inside and outside,the new home is beautifully executed and tastefully done. Something tells me that the
Provosts would applaud the beautiful new home!
Congratulations for a job beautifully done!
Written by, Sam Whitford of the Ashland Historic Commission
Individual Award
Awarded to Mark Knox
For the past several years, Mark Knox has been a planner for KDA Homes, as one of its founding partners.
However, Mark is perhaps most widely known in our community for his important contributions while working
for the City of Ashland as a Land Use Planner for thirteen years. During that time, Mark was instrumental in
writing and promoting land use ordinances that encourage livability, sustainability, and the preservation of
our historic architectural resources.
Early in his career, while working as a Land Use Planner in Ashland, Mark began to build his strong reputation
in the community while acting as staff liaison to the City of Ashland Historic Commission. This work further
heightened his awareness of preservingthe historic nature of this community, and the quality of life it
enhances. While supporting and strengthening existing ordinances, and writing new ordinances that help
preserve our historic urban inventory, Mark has demonstrated his long-term passion forthis important work
-earning the praise and sometimes the ire of citizens and administrators -but ever to the benefit of the
Ashland community.
From the perspective of Ashland’s Historic Commission, Mark Knox has earned both gratitude and praise for
his efforts of over twenty-five years. Mark has worked logistical support in moving historic homes to new
locations on Oak St. (homes that would have otherwise been lost); he has advocated to save Carpenter Hall
from destruction; he’s helped with the extensive project to save and renovate the Lithia Springs Hotel; and
more recently, he has convinced his business partners at KDA Homes of the importance of preserving the
old Phillips Home at 1068 E. Main St., resulting in the moving of this gem of architecturejust forty-feet forward
across its lot, rather than tearing it down.
These are just a few of the contributions that Mark has made over the years, all of them offering a significant
and positive impact on our community, so that these historical buildingswill be enjoyed and appreciated for
decades into the future. Mark’s efforts have always been in the interest of our community, educating our
citizens about the importance of saving our architectural heritage, for a better life and richer sense of our
history here in Ashland, Oregon.
Mark has established a well-earned reputation in our community of being a champion, defender, and
promoter of the importance of the preservation of our limited inventory of historic architectural resources. He
richly deserves our praise, our thanks, and the Commission’s recognition, by presenting Mark with this Award
for his service promoting and advancing Historic Preservation in the City of Ashland.
Written by, Keith Swink of Ashland Historic Commission