HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-01-04 Historic PACKET
HISTORIC COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
January 4, 2017 at 6:00 P.M.
I. REGULAR MEETING - CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m. SISKIYOU ROOM in the Community
Development/Engineering Services Building, located at 51 Winburn Way
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Historic Commission regular meeting of December 7, 2016.
III. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public
Forum is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes or less, depending on the number of individuals
wishing to speak.)
IV. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT:
V. PLANNING ACTION REVIEW
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-02095
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 563 Rock Street
APPLICANT: Advantage Building & Design
OWNER: Michael & Maxine McNab
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Design Review to allow for the construction of a 990 square
foot second dwelling unit at 563 Rock Street. The project involves restoring the existing historic
contributing residence and the construction of a new second dwelling unit located off of Maple Street.
The proposal also requests an Exception to Site Development and Design Standards to allow for a
parking buffer less than eight feet from a residential structure. Seven non-hazardous trees are
proposed for removal from the subject property as part of the application. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Low Density Multiple-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; 39
1E 05 DA; TAX LOT: 5200.
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Continued discussion of proposed ordinance amendments for public art installations on historic
contributing buildings.
VII. COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA:
VIII. NEW ITEMS:
Review board schedule
Project assignments for planning actions
IX. OLD BUSINESS:
X. ADJOURNMENT:
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
December 7, 2016
Community Development/Engineering Services Building 51 Winburn Way Siskiyou Room
CALL TO ORDER:
Commission Chair, Shostrom called the meeting to order at 6:02pm in the Siskiyou Room at the Community Development and
Engineering Offices located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520.
Commissioners Present: Council Liaison:
Shostrom Carol Voisin - ABSENT
Skibby
Leonard Staff Present:
Mark Schexnayder; Staff Liaison
Whitford
Regan Trapp; Secretary
Emery
Swink
Von Chamier
Giordano
Commissioners Absent:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Leonard motioned to approve minutes from November 2, 2016. Whitford seconded. Voice vote; All AYES. Motion passed
PUBLIC FORUM:
There was no one in the audience wishing to speak.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT:
No report was given.
Whitford commented on VoiHistoric Commission and all agreed that she has been a positive
addition and will be missed.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Continued discussion of proposed ordinance amendments for public art installations on historic contributing
buildings with the Public Arts Commission.
Shostrom started the discussion by giving the background of his interactions with the Public Arts Commission and
continued meetings with Ms. Harris. The Commission dissected the proposed ordinance amendments as a group.
The Commission discussed the proposed changes to Ashland Municipal Code section 2.29.165 Review of proposed
artwork in Historic Districts. The Commission unanimously agreed to four specific changes to the most recent draft
ordinance sent by the Public Art Commission. The changes include requiring the Public Art Commission to appear before
and present the art project directly to the Historic Commission. This was suggested because the most recent Public Art
Commission project (Theater Corridor Project) was presented to the Historic Commission by a member of the Public Art
Commission. Another change they would like to see is to include a provision that the Historic Commission input shall be
provided within 45 days AND a minimum of two commission meetings. This was requested so that discussion can take
place at the first meeting and a decision will be made at the second meeting of the Commission after delivery of the
proposal. In addition, the Historic Commission is requesting that the Public Art Commission notify them directly prior to
any public art presentations of art concepts to the general public. The Historic Commission suggested this because the
Mayorommission members should attend public art presentations of art concepts to the
the presentations. Lastly, the Historic Commission is requesting
that the Community Development Department notify all properties within the specified historic district not just properties
located within 200 feet of the perimeter of the subject site. I believe the intent here was to allow for more public input
affecting the historic district where the art project is located.
Shostrom announced that due to the length of the meeting he would be adjusting the schedule of planning actions on
the agenda.
PLANNING ACTION REVIEW
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-02201
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 221 Oak Street
OWNER: Spartan Ashland Natalie Real Estate, LLC
APPLICANT: Bemis Developments, Inc.
DESCRIPTION: A request for a modification of previously approved Planning Action #2015-01517 for the property
located at 221 Oak Street. The modifications requested include: 1) relocation of the recreation area to the east side of
the property, between 209 and 221 Oak Street; 2) relocation of the new cottage to the west side of the property, in the
previously approved recreation area; 3) the addition of four new parking spaces; 4) the removal of one tree (Tree #1),
the large cedar located at the northeast corner of the property near the driveway entrance; and 5) modifications to the
design of the home being reconstructed at 221 Oak Street including the exterior treatment and roof pitch. Also requested
is an Exception to the Solar Setback requirement to allow the reconstructed home at 221 Oak Street to cast a shadow
on the property to the north greater than would be cast by a six-foot fence built on the property line. The owner of the
property to the north has agreed to the proposed Exception. (The previous approval granted Outline & Final Plan, Site
Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Exceptions and Tree Removal Permit approvals for the properties at
209-221-225 Oak Street and 11 B Street.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family
Residential; ZONING: R-2; 39 1E 09BB; TAX LOTS: 15900.
There was no conflict of interest or ex-parte contact indicated by the Commission.
There was no staff report given.
Shostrom opened the public hearing to the applicants.
Mr. Ed Bemis, applicant, PO Box 1018, Ashland, and Mr. Ray Kistler, Architect, of 66 Water St, Ashland,
addressed the Commission. They gave a brief description of the ongoing project there.
After going into detail on the changes, Mr. Bemis stated that they would like a little wiggle room with their
choices on siding as the manufactured brands are expensive and not easy to come by.
Shostrom closed the public hearing and opened to the Commission for discussion.
Whitford motioned to approve PA-2016-02201 as presented. Skibby seconded. Voice vote; ALL AYES. Motion
passed
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-01947
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 549 Fairview
OWNER/APPLICANT: James Williams/Bob Haxton
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Design Review to allow for the construction of a 499 square foot second
dwelling unit on the subject property. The proposed structure will be two stories with a single car garage located
on the first floor and the dwelling unit on the second floor. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low
Density Multiple-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; 39 1E 09CA; TAX LOT: 14100.
There was no conflict of interest or ex-parte contact indicated by the Commission.
Schexnayder gave the staff report for PA-2016-01947.
Shostrom opened the public hearing to the applicants.
There was no applicant present.
Shostrom closed the public hearing and opened to the Commission for discussion.
Some issues brought up by the Commission during their discussion were size of the siding, the porch roof, use
of vertical and horizontal materials and the horizontal railing.
Shostrom motioned to approve PA-2016-01947 with recommendations. Giordano seconded. Voice vote; ALL AYES.
Motion passed.
Recommendations
Belly band with top at floor level. 10 or 12 inches wide
Upper level siding with 4 or 6 inch exposure. If its hardy plank it should be smooth.
Shostrom announced that next on the agenda was 563 Rock Street and he asked Schexnayder why it had been
removed. Schexnayder stated that it had been put on hold by the applicant because of some issues with the
demo application. Schexnayder went on to say that the planning department has requested further information
from the applicants regarding the project, specifically engineering and economic calculations. Mr. Casey Bright,
pulled from the agenda. Mr. Bright asked about the project and wanted to know the specifics of the permit and
wanted to meet the applicants to discuss the potential for saving the house.
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-02103
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 133 Alida Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Mike and Karen Mallory, trustees for the Mallory Revocable Trust
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a 417 square foot Accessory
Residential Unit for the property located at 133 Alida Street. The application includes requests for Exception
to the Site Development and Design Standards for the placement and screening of parking relative to the
Accessory Residential Unit. (The proposal is based upon designation of Alida Street as the front lot line which
is consistent with the established orientation of the
the property.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-
2; 39 1E 09DA; TAX LOT: 3300.
Von Chamier stated that she works for Kencairn Landscape who is the applicant for this project. She stated
that she can
Schexnayder gave the staff report for PA-2016-02103
Shostrom opened the public hearing to the applicants.
Mike and Karen Mallory, owners of 133 Alida Street, in Ashland, and Kerry Kencairn, applicant representative
at 545 A Street, Ashland, addressed the Commission. Ms. Kencairn gave a brief description of the project and
went on to say that every effort was made to make it work and make sense in the neighborhood. Mr. Mallory
pointed out that the unit encroaches into the 8 foot buffer and it will replace the existing garage. Mr. Mallory
added that they shifted the porch back to the north side and put a fence up to address the
They feel they have gone above and beyond for all interested parties.
Shostrom closed the public hearing and opened to the Commission for discussion.
Giordano motioned to approve PA-2016-02103 as presented. Whitford seconded. Voice vote; ALL AYES. Motion
passed
COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA:
165 Water presentation
Amy Gunter, Rogue Planning and Development, 1424 S. Ivy Street Medford, OR addressed the Commission. Mr. Gil
Livni and Brian, from Ron Grimes Architects was also present.
presentation describing the project at 165 Water:
The proposal is for a 44,516 square foot, three-story, mixed use commercial, hotel and residential condominium structure.
The proposed structure is oriented towards both streets with the primary orientation towards the higher order street,
Water Street. The proposed structure is 9,309 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor divided into nine
tenant spaces. The spaces are a mixture of retail, commercial space, coffee shop, the hotel lobby and lobby for the
residential units. The second floor is proposed as 17,220 and is proposed as a 27-unit hotel. The hotel rooms are between
250 and 450 square feet. A larger studio unit and Honeymoon Suite are proposed they 712 square feet and 631 square
feet. There is also breakfast dining area, a 1,062 square foot fitness center and a balcony area. Each hotel unit is
proposed to have a small balcony area to provide some outdoor space. The second floor is larger than the first floor with
most the additional building square footage at the rear of the structure where the second floor overhangs the rear of the
first floor. The third floor is proposed as ten residential units. The entire square footage of the floor is 18,257 square
feet in area. The residential units range in size from 1,055 square feet to 1,637 square feet and between one and three
bedrooms. Orientation of the structure is towards the intersection with prominent ground floor entrances on both street
the intersection as feasible with the building façade occupying much of both street frontages. The entrances to the
commercial units open onto the public pedestrian areas and the outdoor seating areas. The entrances are all designed
in a manner to provide clear, visible, and functional entrances with direct access to the public sidewalk. Emphasis has
been provided to the entrances using roof overhangs and awnings. Upper story floors provide roof cover, the recesses
in the façade provide arcades and awnings protect pedestrians from the rain and sun. The façade of the building along
the street frontages havedestrian
friendly environment. The building has been designed to give the impression of separate, 25 30-foot wide buildings
with building material changes, surface tr
buildings attached along the frontage and provide emphasis on the entrances.
End of excerpt.
Ms. Gunter went on to say that the next step is a formal application and they are looking for feedback on the proposal.
The Commission discussed the proposal in depth and below are comments that were made.
part of the last proposal.
Shostrom stated that the building is too big but a big improvement over the first few proposals. He went on to say
that there is very good quality of detailing on the building.
Emery likes the design because it breaks up the massing and looks like separate buildings. Makes it look like
mixed architecture and more like downtown.
Swink stated that he likes how the building is broken up. He likes the stucco, brick and wood.
Giordano says that it may be the rendering, but there is something off about it.
Shostrom likes the grounding of the corners but feels, a masonSeems
like the applicant is trying to put too much building on the lot.
The Commissioners were in agreement that they wanted more time for the review of the photos.
Emery commented that the building is transitional and next to commercial, industrial area and seems to fit and
likes this design much better.
Skibby remarked
Leonard conveyed she wishes the building could sit flat on the ground.
Emery called attention to the fact that the City needs more hotels downtown.
Commissioners heartily endorsed the project and appreciate all the perspectives given.
NEW ITEMS:
Review board schedule
Project assignments for planning actions
thth
Historic Preservation Week: May 14 20 2017 Banner info
**Commissioners request accordion style file folders to hold their plans during their site visits. Trapp will order
these before the next meeting.
OLD BUSINESS:
There was no old business to discuss.
Review Board Schedule
th
December 8 Terry, Keith, Bill
th
December 15 Terry, Taylor, Tom
nd
December 22 Terry, Piper, Sam
th
December 29 Terry, Taylor, Bill
th
January 5 Terry, Keith, Dale
Project Assignments for Planning Actions
PA-2014-01956 Lithia & First All
PA-2014-00710/711 143/135 Nutley Swink & Whitford
PA-2014-01283 172 Skidmore Shostrom
PA-2014-02206 485 A Street Whitford
PA-2015-00178 156 Van Ness Ave Shostrom
PA -2015-00374 160 Lithia Way Emery
PA-2015-00878 35 S. Pioneer Leonard
PA-2015-01496 35 S. Second-Winchester Inn Shostrom
PA-2015-01695 399 Beach Skibby
PA-2015-01517 209 Oak Shostrom
PA-2015-02203 868 A Street Whitford
PA-2016-00275 574 Allison Emery
PA-2016-00387 95 N. Main Shostrom
PA-2016-00763 5 N. Main Swink
PA-2016-00209 25 N. Main Giordano
PA-2016-00818 175 Pioneer Shostrom & Skibby
PA-2016-00847 252 B Street Whitford
PA-2016-00587 872 Siskiyou Blvd Skibby
PA-2016-01027 276 B Street Shostrom & Leonard
PA-2016-01641 221 Oak Street Shostrom
PA-2016-01947 549 Fairview Emery
PA-2016-02103 133 Alida Swink
ANNOUNCEMENTS & INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
Next meeting is scheduled January 4, 2017 at 6:00 pm
There being no other items to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 9:03 pm
Respectfully submitted by Regan Trapp
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-02095
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 563 Rock Street
OWNER: Michael & Maxine McNab
APPLICANT: Advantage Building & Design
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Design Review to allow for the construction of a 990 square foot second dwelling unit
at 563 Rock Street. The project involves restoring the existing historic contributing residence and the construction of a new
second dwelling unit located off of Maple Street. The proposal also requests an Exception to Site Development and Design
Standards to allow for a parking buffer less than eight feet from a residential structure. Seven non-hazardous trees are
proposed for removal from the subject property as part of the application. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low
Density Multiple-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; 39 1E 05 DA; TAX LOT: 5200.
NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on Wednesday January 4, 2017 at 6:00 PM in the Community
Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way.
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 6:00 PM in the Community
Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way.
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: December 22, 2016
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: January 5, 2017
The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above.
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn
Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown above.
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 14 day 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
g 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. Failure to 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.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be
provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Engineering Services
Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division at 541-488-5305.
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2016\\PA-2016-02095 RENOTICE.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 Design Standards 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.
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
18.5.7.040.B
1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can
be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or
property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated
by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6.
b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall
be a condition of approval of the permit.
2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets
all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and
standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints
in part 18.10.
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or
existing windbreaks.
c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the
subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable
alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this
determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact
on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance.
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation
requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2016\\PA-2016-02095 RENOTICE.docx
2.29.165 Review of proposed artwork in Historic Districts.
A. The Public Art Commission shall seek input from the Historic Commission for public art and
murals located in a historic district as follows.
1. Review of call for artist or Request for Qualifications (RFQ) prior to issuing the call for
artist or RFQ.
Staff notes:
The PAC and HC appear to agree on this issue, included in the November 21 PAC
draft.
2. Review of public art and mural concepts prior to final approval.
Staff notes:
The PAC November 21 draft limits HC review of public art at the concept stage to art
sited on listed or contributing buildings.
Included in November 15, 2016 draft ordinance that went to the City Council the
PAC would provide public art concepts to all City Commission for review for public art
proposed in a historic district.
3. Historic Commission input to the Public Art Commission shall be provided within 45
days of delivery of the call for artist, RFQ, concepts or proposals to the Community
Development Department. In addition to the Public Art Commission, Historic
Commission input shall be provided directly to the City Council. Historic Commission
recommendations shall be advisory only.
Staff notes:
The PAC and HC appear to agree on this issue, included in the November 21 PAC
draft.
However, PAC November 21 draft called for 45 day turnaround for public art
concepts in this draft also applied to HC comments on the call s.
B. In addition to the review process described above in subsection A, the Public Art
Commission shall seek input from the Historic Commission for public art that is attached to
or murals that are painted on structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places or
on contributing structures within a historic district located in a historic district.
1
AMC 2.29 proposed changes
1/4/17 Historic Commission meeting draft
Staff notes:
The PAC and HC appear to agree on the language in subsection B, 1- 3, included in
the November 21 PAC draft.
The Oregon Statewide Planning Program requires local governments to adopt
programs to protect historic resources for present and future generations and to
adopt policies and ordinance provisions which ensure preservation of inventoried
historic resources. (Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 5: Natural
Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces) four historic
districts included 922 contributing buildings or resources when the most recent
inventories were completed in 1998-2002.
1. In its review of public art and murals proposed for installation on structures listed on the
National Register of Historic Places or on contributing structures within a historic
district, the Public Art Commission shall apply the following criteria.
a. Public art and murals shall not be located on a building façade with a public entrance.
b. The number of murals per block face may be limited.
c. Historically significant murals (including historic advertisements) shall not be painted
over, even if faded.
d. Public art and murals shall not be allowed on an unpainted exterior building wall
made of stone or brick.
e. To the extent practicable, public art and murals shall be applied only to the flat planes
of walls.
f. Imitative materials including but not limited to asphalt siding, wood textured
aluminum siding, and artificial stone should be avoided in public art and mural
installations.
2. The Historic Commission shall review public art and murals proposed to be installed on
structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places and on contributing structures
within a historic district using the following criteria.
a. Public art and murals should not be placed in a site where it is out of scale for the site
and adjacent architecture.
b. The location of public art and murals on the building shall not cover or detract from
significant or character-defining architectural features such as such as windows,
2
AMC 2.29 proposed changes
1/4/17 Historic Commission meeting draft
doors, pilasters, cornices, or other building trim, feature bands, or other recessed or
projecting features.
c. The visual integrity of the building should be maintained after the public art or mural
is applied to the exterior by preserving prominent vertical and horizontal lines created
by architectural features such as columns, posts, piers, windows, doors, lintels,
windowsills, feature bands, the foundation, base or other recessed or projecting
features.
3. The Community Development Department shall provide notice of Historic Commission
review of proposed public art to owners of record of all properties located within 200 feet
of the perimeter of the subject site. Owners of record shall be determined by the most
recent property tax assessment roll. The notice shall include the street address of the
individually listed or historic contributing building, a summary of the proposal, and the
applicable criteria for the decision in subsections 2.29.165.B.1 and 2.
Additional Staff notes:
and throughout the
document.
3
AMC 2.29 proposed changes
1/4/17 Historic Commission meeting draft
PROJECT ASSIGNMENTS FOR PLANNING ACTIONS
PA-2014-01956 Lithia & First All
PA-2014-00710/711 143/135 Nutley Swink & Whitford
PA-2014-01283 172 Skidmore Shostrom
PA-2014-02206 485 A Street Whitford
PA-2015-00178 156 Van Ness Ave Shostrom
PA -2015-00374 160 Lithia Way Emery
PA-2015-00878 35 S. Pioneer Leonard
PA-2015-01496 35 S. Second-Winchester Inn Shostrom
PA-2015-01695 399 Beach Skibby
PA-2015-01517 209 Oak Shostrom
PA-2015-02203 868 A Street Whitford
PA-2016-00275 574 Allison Emery
PA-2016-00387 95 N. Main Shostrom
PA-2016-00763 5 N. Main Swink
PA-2016-00209 25 N. Main Giordano
PA-2016-00818 175 Pioneer Shostrom & Skibby
PA-2016-00847 252 B Street Whitford
PA-2016-00587 872 Siskiyou Blvd Skibby
PA-2016-01027 276 B Street Shostrom & Leonard
PA-2016-01641 221 Oak Street Shostrom
PA-2016-01947 549 Fairview Emery
PA-2016-02103 133 Alida Swink
January 2016
Ashland Historic Review Board Schedule
Meet at 3:00pm, Lithia Room*
Terry, Keith, Dale
January 5th
Terry
January 12th
January 19th
Terry
January 26th
Terry
February 2nd Terry
February 9th Terry
*Call 541-488-5305 to verify there are items on the agenda to review
12/20/2016
Historic Commission Membership_Web.doc
\\
@ashland.or.us
Packets
\\
Historic Commission
\\
Mail
-
EAddress shobro@jeffnet.org kswink@mind.net skwhippet@mind.net terryskibby321@msn.com tomarch@charter.netbill@ashlandhome.nettttaylord1@yahoo.compiper@kencairnlandscape.com mark.schexnayder@ashland.o
r.usregan.trapp
Commissions & Committees
\\
dev
-
comm
20442233
\\
--
G:
WorkPhone 552552
HomePhone
Membership List
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Mailing Address City of AshlandPlanning Dept.City of AshlandPlanning Dept.
88887
201201201201201201720192019
--------
3030303030303030
--------
TermExpiration44444444
hitford
NameDale ShostromChairmanKeith SwinkSam WTerry SkibbyTom GiordanoBill EmeryTaylor LeonardPiper Von Chamier Mark SchexnayderRegan TrappAdmin. Staff