Foll moved and Krippaehne seconded to approve the minutes of the June 5, 2002 meeting as submitted. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Knox reported this application is for the addition of a sixth unit (which is currently used for the owner's unit) at the Bayberry Inn. Although not a requirement because of the E-1 zoning, the owner lives on site. She is proposing to move to the existing mobile home located on the rear of the property. In the past, the mobile home has been used for storage and for a rental unit. Knox further explained a handicap ramp will be required and the owner has proposed the location in front of the inn, which will then meander to the side of the existing porch. Knox assured the members that the plans will come before the Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit for the ramp (and railing if required). Skibby asserted it would look best if a railing were not required but understands it may be a building code requirement. Knox added that condition #3 states that detailed plans of the ADA ramp (including materials and handrails) shall be reviewed by the Review Board prior to issuance of a building permit.

Krippaehne moved to recommend approval of this application to the Hearings Board and Skibby seconded the motion. The motion was approved with a unanimous vote.

Shostrom stepped down and declared a conflict of interest since he is the designer for this project. Skibby took over as chair for this action.

Knox explained this Conditional Use Permit application is to enlarge the existing non-conforming house into the front and side yard setback areas. The existing front porch is one foot from the front property line and the existing south side of the house is four feet from the side property line. Required setbacks are 20 feet in front and six feet on the side. The proposed living room addition will be 91 square feet. The porch addition will wrap around the front facade to the southeast side of the house. The proposal will allow wheelchair access to the front door, will create a wheelchair storage area and also will allow for the installation of an accessible bathroom. Knox stated that most all houses on that block are non-conforming. He pointed out that there are still plans to install a sidewalk on Eighth Street but that currently, plans are pending State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) approval as to whether or not the sidewalks can be installed without a parkrow. Conditions 2 and 3 of the proposed Findings and Orders address this. Knox said SHPO comments should be known within 2-3 weeks. As far as the design is concerned, Knox related it conforms to the vernacular design of the house. Exterior materials will match the existing cedar shingles and asphalt composition roof. The aluminum windows will be replaced with vinyl windows with 51/2 inch wide casings. Staff feels this proposal is compatible with the house and the Railroad District and is recommending approval.

Skibby asked if the porch was considered part of the structure and Knox said it is. Foll asked for clarification on condition #2. Knox responded this is a standard condition for public improvements that the property owner sign an agreement (to be recorded on the deed to the property) verifying the owner is aware that fencing, landscaping, etc. in the right-of-way would need to be removed prior to the improvements if necessary. In this case, it would be the installation of sidewalks on Eighth Street. Krippaehne wondered when the decision will be made on the sidewalk and Knox stated it should be within a month.

Foll lives three houses down from this property and commented this is an eclectic neighborhood with no set style. The proposal will be a wonderful and functional addition to the house. Skibby added that the owners are saving a home built in 1948 and retaining the 40s look.

Foll then moved and Krippaehne seconded to recommend approval of this planning action to the Hearings Board with the conditions as proposed by the Planning Department. The motion was unanimously approved.

Knox reported this application is for the transfer of ownership for the Red Wing Bed & Breakfast. There will be no changes, there have been no complaints, and Staff is recommending approval. The applicant has stated she has read and understands all the previous conditions of approval.

The Commission discussed travelers' accommodations in general and the loss of affordable housing. Knox commented that generally, the City is not accepting rental conversions to travelers' accommodations because of this loss so the Commission will probably see fewer applications in the future.

Skibby moved to recommend approval of this application to the Hearings Board. Foll seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed.

Preliminary Plans for a New Mixed Use Building at 665 "A" Street - Colin Swales presented new renderings of his proposed building, stating he had incorporated the concerns expressed at the June meeting. He still wants to meet with Jim (who was on the Historic Commission for several years) and Cheryl Lewis because he values their opinion and they live directly across from his proposed building. He has simplified the stepping of the parapet and the top portion will now be all brick.

Skibby commented he likes the modern look with old features. Swales noted he has not worked out any of the details yet nor has he not checked out the different types of brick, but he is proposing all the brick to be the same. The Commission felt his new design is a nice improvement.

Knox stated that Staff is still not solid with Swales' balcony and asked the Commission for comments.

Skibby said that he feels the balcony is fine but wondered what would replace it if Swales were not allowed to build it. Swales stated there perhaps could be a simple shed-roof metal awning (marquee). Shostrom mentioned Swales could bring the eave down to the post and asked him about the height of the arch. Swales responded it is 101/2 feet to the top of the arch. He also commented he doesn't want the balcony the full width of the building. Foll confirmed he thinks the balcony adds to the building and contributes to the early railroad period. Skibby agreed but said Swales should have an alternative just in case the Planning Commission wouldn't approve the design with a balcony.

Knox declared this is a great solid building but Staff does not want it to be overdone, and therefore is currently undecided on the balcony issue, which is very subjective. Swales pointed out there are balconies on other new buildings in Ashland.

Shostrom noted that to have extra volume in the front would work also, although the balcony works well for him. He also said he assumed the balcony would be wood and asked about the colors, adding the balcony should blend in and not jump out. Swales stated he has not decided on colors yet, but agreed it should blend. Shostrom commented he should not make the balcony a dominant feature because it is such a beautiful building. The only odd thing he sees is the need to have the concrete go all the way to the street in the 10 foot setback area. Swales said he has thought about brick style concrete and concrete pavers. He also pointed out the balcony would not be encroaching into the public right-of-way. Knox asserted that Staff has a problem with the planting strip because it is not consistent with the rest of the area. Shostrom stated that perhaps one more street tree with grates around all the trunks could work for him.

Krippaehne stated she has a philosophical problem with trying to make a new building look old. She said Swales had done a good job with the design but it seems to be striving a little too much to look old. She personally feels it should be a little more modern. Swales agreed with what Krippaehne had to say, noting that he does not want his building to be the exact replica of a 150 year old building. However, with the volume of the building, he wanted the fenestrations looking right. Simplifying the brick would also modernize the building. Knox said Swales could remove the double arch above the windows to modernize it also.

Skibby maintained it is nice to have a blend of the old and the new and that he doesn't want to lose all historic features on the building. Swales said he is trying to achieve a mix and referred to the post office and the telephone exchange building in Jacksonville as examples.

Shostrom stated Swales had done a great job and conceded Krippaehne made an excellent point. He said that designing a new building that fits in well with the Historic District while remaining contemporary is not always easy to do. This design is safe; it would be much more difficult to make it more contemporary and have it still fit, although it could be accomplished.

In a straw vote, all members present felt the balcony was fine but would also like to see the design with the metal awning (or marquee). Also, they preferred not to have a parkrow in front of the building.

Foll said this is a classic design and will always hold up. The materials will modernize it. He declared it is necessary to look at "A" Street as a whole, not just this building. He also maintained the balcony fits well with the design but acknowledged a marquee may look all right also. Shostrom stated a third alternative would be to hip the tin roof. He also said he would like to see the design of the backside of the building.

Swales will bring more elevations, including the backside of the building, to the July 11 Review Board meeting along with 3-D studies of the building. Staff will get as many Commission members as possible to attend in order to give Swales more input since more than half the members were absent. Swales needs the input because he will be turning in his planning application on June 12.

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

Discussion of Training Items - Knox said a local contractor, who is knowledgeable about the use of alternative materials he would like to use on historic buildings, is interested in making a presentation before the full Commission at the next meeting. The Commission was fine with this.

There were no items to discuss.

It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 8:48 p.m.