At 7:35 p.m., Chairperson Terry Skibby called the meeting to order at the Community Center. Members present were Terry Skibby, Dale Shostrom, Kay Maser, Gary Foll, Jay Leighton, Bob Meiser, Keith Chambers, Vava Bailey and Joan Steele. Also present were Associate Planner Mark Knox, Secretary Sonja Akerman and Council Liaison Cameron Hanson. No members were absent.

Steele moved and Bailey seconded to approve the minutes of the March 7, 2001 meeting as submitted. The motion was unanimously passed.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Knox briefly reviewed this application, which has been continued for the last few months, and noted the Historic Commission concerns as stated in the March minutes. Hoxmeier has provided drawings, which include three options. He commended Hoxmeier for taking into account the members' concerns in his revisions. Staff is leaving the options to the Historic Commission and will then support this decision at the Planning Commission level.

Hoxmeier thanked the Commission for hearing this application for the third time. He stated he had changed all the posts to 6 x 6, had moved the bike parking to the back, and shortened the awnings on the south side of the building, noting the smaller awning is drawn in dotted lines on option 1. Hoxmeier said he prefers option 1, then passed around pictures of structures with similar rooflines. He explained the differences between the rooflines in the three options and pointed out windows of uneven plate heights in existing structures in the immediate area.

The Commission discussed the window heights in the existing building and the proposed addition. Skibby asked about the siding on the addition and Hoxmeier said it will match the siding on the existing building and clarified it will be 1 x 6 cedar. After Foll questioned the window and door alignment, Hoxmeier clarified on the south and west sides the windows will line up with the door on the new addition. Shostrom stated that in comparing the photos Skibby provided of the existing building and the drawings that were submitted, there are discrepancies. Hoxmeier stated he would like the Commission to consider option 1 and apologized for the deficiencies in the drawings.

Knox explained the details can either be worked out by conditions in the Findings, or the proposal can be continued to give the applicant the opportunity to turn in accurate drawings.

Foll stated he prefers option 1 with the staggered roofline. Since the existing building has odd windows to begin with, he feels it is necessary to look at the addition as a separate building.

Leighton said she would prefer no eyebrow and the slanted cut roof as in option 2. She also would like to see double windows on the side and the existing door changed to 8 feet.

Shostrom explained that of the three options, he prefers 2, but with a hipped roofline on the south elevation. This is the most important elevation because it faces "A" Street. He maintained the windows and door don't fit architecturally because the drawings are not accurate. Because of this, he said he did not feel he could make a fair judgement. He cannot tell what the proportion will be. He then discussed ceiling heights and concluded the solution needs to work both inside and outside. He would like to see the windows line up and the applicant change the ceiling height on the interior in order to make this possible.

Chambers expressed his frustration at micromanaging the design and said that while he still feels it would be best to move the existing building, he realizes that won't happen. He prefers the roofline in option 2 but would also like to see it hipped on the south side. In addition, he would like to see harmony on the outside and then make it work on the inside. Steele agreed with Chambers and added the Commission should insist on accurate drawings. Maser also agreed, then stated inaccurate drawings can throw an entire building off. Furthermore, she stressed the importance of details, noting this should be required by all applicants.

Bailey said she prefers option 2 because it has a more cohesive roofline.

Meiser asked Knox for clarification of conditions the Commission can recommend. Hoxmeier interjected he would rather correct his drawings and come back next month. Meiser said he has no problem with the roofline in options 1 and 2. He concurs with the other members that proper drawings need to be submitted. Skibby stated he prefers option 2 with a straight roofline. His biggest question is the accuracy of the drawings.

Hoxmeier offered to come back next month with accurate drawings. He will draw option 2 with a hipped roof and a gabled roof. He also agreed to waive the timeline another 30 days.

The Historic Commission consensus was that Hoxmeier should consider increasing the height of the existing French door to 8 feet, then draw the south elevation with two windows the same height as the door. Although the majority of the Commission preferred option 2, there was not a general agreement on whether or not it should be hipped or gabled.

Knox related this application is for a 498 square foot accessory residential unit on the upper level of a proposed new garage structure. From a Planning Department perspective, all requirements have been met and staff is recommending approval.

Meiser said there should be window trim detail. Although the concept seems fine, not much detail has been provided. He would also like to see how the addition ties in with the existing house.

Bailey said she walks by this house every day and that it will be a very tall addition to the streetscape, which is not on an alleyway but on Baum Street. She noted there is a small Victorian house across the street and is afraid it will be dwarfed by the two-story structure. She likes the design and the conservatory, but does not feel the roof/gable needs to be so high. Maser agreed with Bailey and again noted her frustration about the lack of detail and measurements on the drawings.

Steele stated that while this is still a very large addition, it is a major triumph for the Historic Commission compared to what was first presented. Still, she would have a hard time voting to approve such a huge garage.

Chambers sees the scale as the problem. He was also dismayed to have no details or call-outs submitted.

Shostrom agreed with Steele the proposed plans are an improvement from the initial submittal. He sees good proportion in the plans and said the addition mimics the existing house with the same slope dormer and main gable. He does not feel it will be appreciably larger on the street side. As far as he can tell, every detail has been matched with the existing house. He also noted the City is encouraging infill rather than sprawl and accessory units in residential areas are one way of accomplishing this. Furthermore, he said he thinks the proposed addition will work well at this location.

Leighton basically concurred with Shostrom. She noted that in some cases, it is too bad infill is a precedence, as this is a beautiful design, however, it will dwarf other houses.

Foll agreed with Steele the architect used the Review Board recommendations for his final submittal, however, without measurements on the plans and without drawings relating to the existing building, it is difficult to tell what the addition will actually look like in the streetscape.

Skibby agreed with Shostrom also in that this type of proposal is encouraged in these residential locations. However, he would like to see more detail in the plans.

Knox agreed the plans lack detail but cautioned the Commission since this is a type 1 planning action, it would most likely not come back with more detail until the plans are submitted for a building permit. A condition can be added to the Findings that the architect submit detailed plans to the Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. Commission concerns include the bulk and scale of the proposed addition and the lack of detail.

Meiser moved to recommend denial of this application to the Planning Commission Hearings Board until acceptable drawings are submitted detailing the siding width and window and door trim, and also a full drawing depicting the balance of the addition to the existing house. Steele seconded the motion. Shostrom noted the Historic Commission is too often put into the position of having to "assume" too much, frequently resulting in finished buildings that do not look like the original design that was approved. The motion was unanimously passed.

In Progress Review - Architect Tom Giordano met with the Commission to update the members in an informal review of an eight-unit project off Scenic Drive between Rock and Nursery Streets. The project will include three single-family residences, two duplexes and one triplex. The Commission was pleased with the changes that have been made since its first inception.

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:

Project Assignments for Planning Actions

Policy Regarding Project Presentation - Knox will add the following wording to the pre-application information sheet: "Any building or sign within the Historic District requires Historic Commission review. Most large scale projects (new commercial buildings, large additions, civic buildings, or a change of more than 10% of a commercial building's front façade) in the Historic District should be "preliminarily" reviewed by the full Historic Commission at its monthly meeting."

Travel Itinerary - The Commission gave Steele kudos for all the work she has done on this project. Steele said she had received e-mail from Shannon Bell of the National Park Service, who expects to have the Ashland site up by the end of June. Bell had also asked that the Commission start thinking about local press for the launching of the itinerary.

Goal Setting Meeting - The Commission decided to have an early regular meeting on June 6 (probably at 4:00 or 4:30), then the goal setting/orientation meeting afterwards.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Skibby reminded the Commission about the free workshop on window restoration on Friday, April 6 at the Ashland Springs Hotel. Also, the Historic Commission update at the Council meeting will be on May 1. All members should plan to attend the Council meeting for the presentation. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be on May 2. The Historic Cemeteries Plan will go to the City Council on May 15. It would be helpful to have Commission members attend this meeting.

It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 10:03 p.m.