HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-01-03 Historic MINASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Minutes
January 3, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
At 7:38 p.m., Chairperson Terry Skibby called the meeting to order at the Community Center. Members present were Terry
Skibby, Dale Shostrom, Kay Maser, Gary Foil, Jay Leighton, Bob Meiser, Vava Bailey and Joan Steele. Also present were
Associate Planner Mark Knox, Secretary Sonja Akerman and Council Liaison Cameron Hanson. Member Keith Chambers was
unable to attend the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
For the record, Skibby stated he would like to clarify on page 5 of the December6, 2000 minutes, that he realizes there are other
forms of transportation on Siskiyou Boulevard other than pedestrian. Leighton moved and Bailey seconded to approve the
minutes of the December 6, 2000 meeting as submitted. The motion was unanimously passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Planning Action 2000-120
Site Review
485 "A" Street
Steve Hoxmeier
Knox reported this application is to construct an addition onto an existing commercial building. He explained the history of this
property from 1993, when the applicant first applied for a "temporary" 800 square foot office/storage/shop building. The project
evolved over the next few years to a 1,100 square foot commercial building that was constructed in 1996. This application is
for phase 2, which consists of a two-story addition. Parking will be in the rear, with ingress and egress off"A" Street. Hoxmeier
has talked with Staff and the Review Board regarding design issues, and Knox said this application is basically the second of
three phases for this development.
Staff concerns include: 1 ) the unbalanced appearance of the roof line and dormer on the south elevation (staff recommends roof
line be continued and not stop at dormer); 2) the use of brick as a portion of the base and inconsistency in height of brick (staff
recommends either use consistent height or drop brick altogether because it does not relate to existing building and is not
appropriate for this type of building); 3) use of brick for detailing, especially with the arches above some of the windows (staff
recommends eliminating brick detail because it is not compatible with existing structure); and 4) details of siding, window trim,
roof material, etc. were not submitted (staff recommends these details be submitted prior to next month's meeting). Overall, Staff
is pleased with the layout of the project, and feels the volume of the addition would work well with the recommended changes.
Skibby asked how phase 3 would tie in with the commercial style of the building. Knox responded initial discussion about the
addition began about three years ago. Since then, the applicant has tried to incorporate concerns of the Historic Commission
and staffwith what he is proposing. Knox noted a good thing about this design is that it will allow any type of building design on
the adjacent lot in the future. Hoxmeier envisions a courtyard on the "A" Street side; however, Staff would like to see the
commercial building be built up to the sidewalk. This application would still allow it to happen in the future.
Leighton asked for an explanation of the "temporary" building that was first requested. Knox said the applicant received approval
from the Planning Commission in 1993 with the stipulation it be reviewed every year in order to monitor changes in the Land Use
Ordinance. The Building Division, however, would not approve such a building.
Steele said she is a little uncomfortable with approving this submitted design without knowing what the next phase would entail.
Knox said that is why clarification is being requested, but the Commission would need to remember this application only consists
of the second phase and should not be influenced by phase 3.
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
January 3,2001
Shostrom questioned why the existing driveway narrows from 10 feet to 8 feet. Knox answered that it allows a porch to be built
on the addition. He also said 8 feet for the driveway still works; however, emergency vehicles won't be able to use it.
Owner/applicant Steve Hoxmeier apologized for not having submitted more detailed drawings. He stated this addition would
match the existing building. Phase 3 will change the structure to be more of a commercial block type building with stone, brick
and arches. He clarified the roofline for phase 2 was drawn to eventually tie in to the addition for phase 3. Meiser asked if the
phase 2 and 3 additions will be connected and Hoxmeier responded they would directly abut on the west elevation. Phase 3
will be a two-story"L" shaped addition on the parking lot and "A" Street sides, with the courtyard located in the corner. Hoxmeier
then noted the addition that is currently being requested will be completely covered in phase 3.
Leighton asked if Hoxmeier could extend the roofline as Staff is recommending and he responded he could. When asked by
Skibby why the ridge of the roof is so high, Hoxmeier stated it is higher because of the walls in the interior floor space. Meiser
questioned the height variation of the roofline. Hoxmeier replied each phase will be higher and he did not want this addition to
look like it sits on top of the existing building. He clarified that with the exception of the brick and arches, all materials will match
the existing building. However, when the third phase is built, the entire exterior of the second phase addition will be covered.
Maser said she is bothered by the fact that none of the windows relate to any other. Hoxmeier said on the "A" Street side, the
dormer was lined up over the major window groupings on the first floor. Maser commented that in her opinion, if the arches are
removed and the center of the dormer is located between the lower two windows, this elevation would look better. She also
questioned the second story windows on the north elevation. Hoxmeier clarified there will be a single hung window to the left
of a French door. The solid walls of the balcony make it difficult to see this.
Leighton asked why the Variance is needed for the driveway. Knox said it is difficult to meet the 75-foot distance between
driveways. Presently, the Grange does not want to do anything with its driveway. Hoxmeier stated he had communicated with
the Grange regarding a shared driveway, but his idea was rejected. He would like to locate the driveway as close to the Grange
as possible and he would still like to work something out regarding a combined driveway.
Meiser commented the wood siding is appropriate for the addition, however, the brick doesn't balance as well as it could. He
continued he does not see a problem with the roofline as drawn because oftentimes, they are not uniformly even. He also said
he thinks the random placement of the windows is not an issue.
Bailey criticized the brick and arches and stated she would prefer to see the roofline continue straight across. She also said the
applicant should work on making the windows compatible. Maser agreed and noted she counted eight different windows and
sizes. Steele said she concurred with Bailey and Maser and disagreed with Meiser on the roofline and windows. She prefers
the elimination of the brick and simplification of the design.
Shostrom stated it is important the applicant create a rhythm with the windows. He noted some of the drawings that were
submitted do not match the photos of the existing building. It is also necessary to look at the proportion of a building. While the
proposed building is fairly proportional, the windows feel out of proportion. In addition, it is necessary to look for header heights
to tie the existing building to the proposed addition. He also pointed out that once the arches and brick are taken away, it is
obvious the windows are not proportional. He would like to see the building look whole. Shostrom suggested Hoxmeier draw
other roofline options of the building, such as a hipped roof, to see if another type of design would work.
Leighton commented it would be better to make the building taller now with the roof extension rather than waiting for phase 3.
Foil noted he would like to see phase 2 match the existing building without the brick and arches. As far as compatibility is
concerned, he would also like to see the windows on the east elevation project to the south elevation.
Skibby stated the drawings submitted are not to scale with what is existing. He agrees the brick should be eliminated, but said
he is not bothered by the height differentiation in the roofline. He suggested making the windows more balanced.
Steele moved to reject the proposed building as presented with the comments as made by Staff and Commission members, and
with the request the applicant take the above considerations into account and come back to the next meeting with clarified
drawings. Maser seconded the motion. Shostrom amended the motion to clarify accurate drawings with details drawn to scale
be submitted. Steele accepted the clarification. Maser commented written specifications should also be included. The motion
was unanimously passed.
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
January 3,2001
Planning Action 2000-124
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, Zone Change, Site Design and Use Review, Administrative Variances
$1 Winburn Way
City of Ashland
Knox reported this application is for the renovation of the Hillah Temple building and the construction of a 4,086 square foot
addition on the north and east sides. There will be seven parking spaces on site and four on the street. A design from the
architect reflecting a gabled roof entry on the entrance pavilion was submitted, however staff would like to see something more
commercial and traditional. Therefore, it is recommending the front entry be redesigned to incorporate a fiat roofed entry with
a cornice cap as included in the Staff Report and referenced as Staff Exhibit S-1.
Skibby asked why this is not a two-story building and Knox replied a second story could be eventually added. Also, he indicated
it has been decided the best communication between Public Works and Community Development (the City departments that will
be moved to the building) would result from a one-story structure. Skibby then asked if the Alice Peil Walkway would be affected
and Knox stated it will be enhanced.
The Commission discussed the elevation included with the application versus Staff Exhibit S-1 (Plan Concept B). Skibby asked
what design the Commission should be reviewing, as he felt the material provided did not make it clear. Knox told the
Commission to study the elevations provided to make its decision.
Maser asked if there have been any objections from neighbors. Knox responded there had been none and reminded the
Commission the process for this planning action started last year with the design charrettes.
Since other applicants are required to provide detailed drawings of buildings for Site Reviews, the Commission concurred the
City should also be required to provide this type of information.
Foil stated he has no problem with the zone change but he could not make a judgment on the plans that were presented because
more design detail and specifications are needed. He added he would like to see the design move more toward Staff Exhibit
S-1. Leighton said she also prefers this design and asked if the interior layout would affect the design. Knox said the interior
design is not in its final stage yet. Leighton related she also likes the treatment of the windows in the exhibit, as they are more
compatible. She does not feel this building needs to fit all the criteria because of its location and ultimate use so she feels fine
with the Variance and the Zone Change.
Shostrom said he thinks the building is well designed but wondered why there hasn't been more of a public process on this
application. He was not at the Review Board when the pre-application was reviewed, but he said he hasn't seen anything since
the design charrette. Hanson said various design concepts were presented to the City Council quite a while ago and the Council
made a decision as to what direction the design should go. Shostrom then asked why the architect was not in attendance for
a presentation with color renderings and a model, similar to when the library plans were presented. He wanted to know if the
Commission even had a choice at this point. Bailey agreed and questioned why the City would not want the architects involved
in a public presentation to the Historic Commission. Shostrom stated he finds it hard to recommend approval of the design
because he can't scrutinize what the building will look like. There is simply not enough detail. Steele also agreed and said
because of the lack of detail provided, she couldn't vote favorably for an application for the City that she wouldn't vote for
someone else.
Maser related she was bothered by the fact that this is a public building and yet no public art or outdoor eating areas are
provided. She realizes this is across the street from Lithia Park, but reiterated this is a public building and public orientation
should be considered. She also stated she feels there is a big error in not providing more parking. There will be three major
construction projects in the downtown area affecting parking at the same time - the library, OSF Theater and the Hillah Temple.
This is a major impact on the citizens of Ashland, especially for those who can't take a bus, walk or ride a bicycle due to the
location of their homes and physical conditions. She is also concerned only one shade tree is proposed for the seven parking
spaces. Since this is a public building and the public is paying for it, it should have places for people to sit under shade trees
and a place to park their cars.
Bailey agreed with Shostrom's comments and added she is amazed the City thinks the Commission can look at a picture with
no details provided and expect approval. Meiser also agreed and noted more details are needed in the elevations. This should
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
January 3,2001
be expected from anyone. The building could be a real showpiece, but he said he would feel uncomfortable making a decision
based on what was provided.
Knox stated he would try to get a presentation scheduled to clarify the Commission's concerns.
Steele commented a great deal is made about public input in various City sources and wondered if the Historic Commission will
have a say in the design of the building.
Skibby remarked he feels comfortable with the way the design is going but agreed with the other members there is too much
confusion on what is being presented for the final design. He also stated the Alice Peil Walkway and location and concealment
of the garbage area should be addressed. There is a need here to see something more substantial.
Leighton added she is curious about the south side of the proposed addition as to why the entire wall is set back where the door
is located.
Shostrom moved to deny this application because of the insufficient drawings and lack of presentation in order to understand
what the building will look like. As part of this motion, he would like to request the architect come to the next Historic Commission
meeting to make a presentation, as the members would like to be able to critique the final design. Without the preliminary plans,
there is not enough to support approval. Steele seconded the motion. Leighton noted the Commission likes the intent of the
design that was submitted. Meiser added the scale of the structure warrants a thorough review. Shostrom accepted the friendly
amendments and the motion passed unanimously.
BUILDING PERMITS
Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of December follow:
11 Pioneer Street
263 Seventh Street
101 Oak Street
267 Eighth Street
11 Pioneer Street
OSF
James Gleaves
Standing Stone
Ken McCulloh
OSF
New Floor System
Shed Demolition
Addition/Remodel
Addendum
Foundation Only for Theatre
OLD BUSINESS
Review Board
Following is the January schedule for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the
Planning Department:
January 4th
January 11th
January 18th
January 25th
February 1st
Skibby and Meiser
Skibby, Steele and Bailey
Skibby, Maser and Foil
Skibby, Steele and Shostrom
Skibby, Maser and Meiser
Project Assignments for Planning Actions
PA# 99-102
PA# 99-108
PA #2000-039
PA #2000-052
PA #2000-074
PA #2000-088
PA #2000-095
PA #2000-098
141 Lithia Way
340 Oak Street
410 Siskiyou Boulevard
220 Fourth Street
15 South Pioneer Street
159 North Main Street
180 Alida Street
50 Sixth Street
Shostrom
Shostrom
Skibby
Shostrom
Skibby
Bailey
Foil
Leighton
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
January 3,2001
PA #2000-106 239 Oak Street Meiser
PA #2000-107 House Move to Laurel Street Leighton
PA #2000-108 552 "A" Street Foil
Siskiyou Boulevard Committee
Shostrom reported three designs for Siskiyou Boulevard would be chosen and available for the public to view.
With a motion by Foil and second by Leighton, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to extend the meeting beyond
lO:OO p. m.
NEW BUSINESS (none)
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Skidmore-Academy National Rec~ister Nomination
Knox stated he will be going to the State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation meeting in Roseburg on February 23. The
Committee will be making its final decision on the inclusion of the Skidmore-Academy Historic District in the National Register
of Historic Places at that time. He invited members to join him if they are able.
Travel Itinerary
Steele was happy to report the amended travel itinerary for the National Register web site was scheduled to be mailed the
following day.
History Day
Leighton stated Southern Oregon Historical Society is looking for 60 people to volunteer their time to be a judge for the high
school competition on history. History Day has been scheduled on February 17 at Southern Oregon University from 8:00 a.m.
to 2:00 p.m. The winners have a chance to go to the State competition, then on to the Nationals. Volunteers should contact
SOHS or Leighton.
DISCUSSION
Shostrom stated there is a need to clarify the policy regarding project presentation. Knox suggested the Commission write a draft
policy and he would then submit it to the City Council. Shostrom said he would first like to know what the current policy is. He
then stressed there ought to be a process, especially for public buildings. Leighton stated the Commission should anticipate
spending more time on this subject at the next meeting. Meiser volunteered to put some language together for the next meeting.
Shostrom will help.
ADJOURNMENT
With a motion by Shostrom and second by Leighton, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting
at 10:26 p.m.
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
January 3,2001
ASHLANb
COMMISSION
Agenda
Tonuory 3, 2001
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m. - ASHLAND COMMUNITY CENTER (59 Winburn Way)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 6, 2000
PUBLIC HEARINGS'
PLANNING ACTION 2000-120 is a request for a Site Review to construct an addition to the existing
commercial building located at 485 A Street. A Variance is included for Distance Between Driveways along
A Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation' Employment; Zoning: E-l; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 AB;
Tax Lot: 6500.
APPLICANT: Steve Hoxmeier
PLANNING ACTION 2000-124 is a request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, Zone Change (R-
1-7.5 to C-l-D) and Site Design and Use Review to allow for the renovation and construction of an addition
to the building located at 51 Winburn Way (i.e. Hillah Temple Building) for use as city office space. Also, a
request for Administrative Variances to four of the Downtown Design Standards, Section VI, of the Site
Design and Use Standards. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential to Commercial
Downtown; Zoning: R-1-7.5 to C-l-D; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 BC; Tax Lot: 2100.
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
OLD BUSINESS:
A.
Review Board ~, appointments/volunteers
Project Assignments for Planning Actions
Other
NEW BUSINESS:
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
A,
State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation will be meeting on February 23 to make final
decision on Skidmore-Academy Historic District -,- 9:00 a.m. in Roseburg.
ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the
Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone number is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 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 Title1).