At 7:05 p.m., Chairperson Dale Shostrom called the meeting to order in the Siskiyou Room, located in the Community Development/Engineering Services Building at 51 Winburn Way. In addition to Shostrom, members present were Joan Steele, Tom Giordano, Terry Skibby, Jay Leighton, Rob Saladoff, Gary Foll, Keith Chambers and Joanne Krippaehne. Also present were Associate Planner Maria Harris, Council Liaison John Morrison and Secretary Sonja Akerman. There were no members absent.

Leighton moved and Chambers seconded to approve the March 5, 2003 minutes as submitted. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.

PUBLIC HEARING

Harris reported this application is for a two-unit motel. The applicant is proposing that one unit be located in the existing house and the other unit in the new building he is proposing to construct to replace the detached structure at the rear of the property. Because the property is zoned Commercial, Harris explained the owner is not required to live on site. The owner is proposing to demolish the existing small building and replace it with a new 485 square foot structure that will not have any openings on the alley side, will use 1 x 6 inch ship lap siding and will use 4 inch trim on the doors and windows. Landscaping will only be necessary in the area that is disturbed by the demolition and construction. Although not specifically stated in the application, Harris stated she does not think there will be any exterior alterations on the existing house. Staff felt the application met the requirements and administratively approved it.

Harris also mentioned e-mail was received from Tom Phillips, a neighbor across the alley, who is concerned that by requiring the paving of the alley, traffic use and speeds will increase, thereby putting more people at risk who walk and play in the area. He asked that the Commission recommend the alley not be paved. Skibby stated this is a unique alley and he agrees with Phillips.

Giordano said only having windows on three sides and the setback of the new structure on the east side bother him. The plans that were submitted look as though the setback on the east property line will only be one foot. Because of building code issues, no openings would be allowed on this side, so there may be windows on only two sides. His concern is that if the plans change in the Building Permit process after review by the Historic Commission, the Commission would not be notified.

Shostrom said he has a concern about the alley (north) elevation. The new building is essentially turning its back on the alley and that is not in keeping with the historic integrity of the alleyscape. On the other hand, he was at the site and was able to go into the building that is proposed for demolition. He feels it should be used for the second unit. It already has a stoop, and the walls and siding are straight. It could also be raised to add a foundation. He said in his opinion, it would be a shame to lose the building. Leighton agreed the existing building is quite wonderful and noted the alleyscape would be lost if the structure is demolished.

Giordano noted it looks as though the building needs to be removed because of the parking requirements. However, Shostrom said he stepped off the area and he feels parking spaces could be rearranged in order to meet the requirements. Chambers said he and Krippaehne had also looked at the building and feel there is a potential to renovate it. Shostrom said there is an opportunity here to improve the alley by using the existing building. Leighton said the building has an intrinsic value to the Commission.

Skibby said that even though the property is zoned Commercial, it is still necessary for the property to keep an historic look. He does not want to see a new building have a negative impact on the Railroad District.

When asked, Harris clarified this application had been administratively approved by the Planning staff and one of the conditions of approval is that the design of the new building needs to meet all the recommendations of the Historic Commission. She said if the Commission does not feel the application should be approved as it was submitted, the members would have to go through the list of criteria in the Design Standards to see what the application does not meet. Saladoff stated the main suggestion the Commission has would be for the applicant to work with the existing building rather than demolish it.

Chambers also said he would also like to go on record regarding the non-paving of the alley. He stated the Commission has a long history against alley paving in the Historic District. In the past, concessions were made from the Planning Commission and the City Council and a "go slow" policy about paving was used. The Commission does not feel that paving improves alleys. Leighton added paving would change the alley because it would essentially create a new street. Steele agreed and said the e-mail from Phillips made valid points. Harris said the Planning Commission rarely requires residential alleys to be paved, but this is commercial. Because of safety, fire trucks, dust and air quality, the City Council's policy is to require paving. Because the alley separates residential from commercial zoning, Skibby said this should be an exception and paving should be delayed. Leighton asked for clarification of the houses on East Main Street reverting back to residences. Harris replied that when a residential use is discontinued in a commercial zone, it would be a non-conforming use to revert back to residential. In other words, it would not be allowed. Chambers commented that he would like to get this issue on the table and perhaps there should be a modification in the code. It has been a long-standing policy of the Historic Commission to recommend against paving the alleys in the Historic Districts. It would also be nice if houses in the Historic District could revert back to residential use in certain areas.

Shostrom stated the applicant should meet the standards of remodeling and restoring under the Site Design and Use Standards. Standard IV-B-6 reads as follows: Try to rehabilitate and restore as many features as possible. Standard IV-B-10 states Any detached structures shall be compatible with the existing building and conform to the above standards. He suggested recommending denial of this proposal because the applicant is not trying to rehabilitate the existing building. Giordano added the existing structure is much more compatible with the neighborhood than the proposed structure. The existing home has a hipped roof; the proposed building has a simple gable roof. The only element he sees in making the building compatible is the siding.

Shostrom said he would have liked to discuss these issues with the applicant, however, there was no one in the audience to speak for the proposal or to hear the concerns of the Commission. Steele agreed and commented that often, the applicants try options not even considered before.

• Contra Rehabilitation & Remodel Standard (IV-B-6), there is no evidence that serious effort has been made to refurbish and restore the existing accessory structure, which has significant historic merit;
• Per Standard IV-B-10, the proposed accessory structure is less compatible with the existing main house than the existing historic outbuilding;
• Due to Building Codes, the east side setback of the accessory structure appears to require no windows, thus re-design would be needed and the Commission has not seen that design;
• Per long-standing understanding between the Historic Commission, Planning Commission and the City Council, paving of historic alleyscapes has not usually been undertaken. We recommend that paving of this alley not take place and that this part of Planning Staff's conditions of approval be removed should the proposal be approved; and
• In light of all the above points, we believe that further public consideration of this Planning Action is warranted and we request that the Hearings Board call this action up for a public hearing.

The Historic Commission was in agreement the best scenario would be for the applicant to talk with its members regarding concerns as stated above.

Review Board - Following is the April schedule for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department:

National Historic Preservation Week (May 5-12) - Krippaehne said she will be working with Saladoff and Skibby on the display boards. The Commission noted the events for the week have been set and the awards will be given at noon on Friday, May 9 in the historic gazebo by the bandshell in Lithia Park.

Educational Articles - Steele volunteered to write at least one article that can be used in the City Source. However, she said she would like more information about what will be required. Marketing Director Ann Seltzer will be invited to come to the May 7 meeting to discuss what she needs for the articles. Chambers suggested a small column on interesting facts, perhaps headed by Did you know that....?

Carnegie Library Restoration - This will be discussed at the May 7, 2003 meeting.

Trinity Episcopal Church Addition - Architect Gary Afseth informed the Commission he has a pre-application conference scheduled next week that involves an addition proposed for the historic Trinity Church. He gave the background history of the original church and subsequent additions. The church is now looking at an expansion for the seating capacity due to the growth in membership. Currently, the capacity is 120 seats (excluding the choir). The addition, which is a transept design, will accommodate 56 seats (28 seats on either side of the chancel). It will have minimal impact to the structural base, as they have been respectful of the existing historic church. The roofline ridge of the addition will also be subordinate to the church. 1 x 6-inch redwood siding will be used to match the church and it will painted the same color white. Wood windows will be used and if the budget will allow, stained glass would be desirable.

Afseth stated he would like Commission input on how they should treat the eaves and gable ends. The existing gable ends have returns. Should the addition have returns or not? Afseth has contacted the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and its concern is more with the floor plan than the details. Afseth then presented a work study model of the church and showed how the addition would look with a hipped roof (similar to one of the additions on the opposite site of the church) and also how it would look with a gable roof (which would match the original church and another existing addition).

The Commission agreed the gable roof would look better than the hipped. The members also agreed they would like to see returns and the copying of some of the details.

The members commended Asfeth on his model, commenting on the usefulness of a 3-D model and how much they appreciated it.

It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m.