Regarding the Revised Plans for Addition on 234 Vista Street section, Steele stated she would like page 3 of the May 8, 2002 minutes amended because there was not enough detail of the Commission comments included. Since there was a full delineation of Sid DeBoer's comments and because the minutes are of public record and not correct, she stated she wanted the Mayor and Council members to receive copies of minutes that reflect the full extent of concerns discussed at the May 8 meeting. (For the record, copies of all the minutes are given to the Mayor and Council.) Following is the amended version of the minutes of this section (to be inserted after the first paragraph):

Also, Steele stated she would like a typo corrected in the first paragraph of that section of the minutes. Exiting should be changed to existing in the 11^th sentence.

Giordano then moved to approve the May 8, 2002 minutes as amended and corrected. Saladoff seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

 PUBLIC HEARINGS

Knox reported this application is for the transfer of ownership for Third Street Cottage. Recalling the application that was originally approved last year for this site, Knox said that Mary Nelke was the property owner and her sister, who is now in failing health, was the business owner. Nelke will now be operating the business also.

Chambers moved to recommend approval of this application to the Hearings Board and Steele seconded the motion. It passed with a unanimous vote.

Knox explained this application is also for a transfer of ownership. Mary Nelke owns the property and her son will own the business. Other than this, no changes are proposed. Foll asked for clarification on where the property owner will be staying, since she is also the owner of Third Street Cottage (see previous application). Knox stated Mary Nelke will be living at 125 North Third Street, where she will be the owner of the property and operator of the business.

Foll then moved and Leighton seconded to recommend approval of this planning action to the Hearings Board. The motion was unanimously approved.

Knox explained the owners of this building propose to completely restore the front facade and have turned in an application for special assessment to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The owners have not committed to a certified rehabilitation, but may do so soon. They plan to operate a coffee house/wine bar on the ground floor and add a second story single apartment unit to the rear of the building. The apartment would be similar to what was added to the building next door (John M. Easterling Building). The Variance is being requested to reduce the required number of parking spaces from six to three. (A parking variance of up to 50% may be granted to preserve existing historic structures in the Historic District.) The applicants propose to share a handicap space with the building on the southeast corner of Fourth and "A" Streets. There is currently no parking provided on site. The owners intend to move the exiting shed in order to provide three parking spaces on this narrow 25-foot wide lot. The shed has been improved over the years and the owners want to continue using it. Therefore, they plan to move it toward the Van Sant Building, raise it up on a foundation and add a second story. They will use the improved shed for storage and office space.

Owners David Gremmels and Cary Bryant, 467 Williamson Way, offered their comments on the project. Gremmels related that the Van Sant Building, also known as the Palace Chop House, will be restored and brought back to its original use in 1905, which was a restaurant. Their version will be to serve various coffees, teas, wines and cheeses. Bryant addressed the design of the shed, stating they need a two-story building to accommodate storage, a garbage and recycling area, and an office. He said they also want to take advantage of the residential overlay, thus the desire for an apartment addition.

Foll asked about the approval from SHPO and Gremmels replied this project has received favorable approval with two conditions - using tempered glass rather than low-E, and that they provide color photos once the project has been completed. Gremmels clarified for Saladoff that the purpose of the shed will be to store supplies, provide a garbage and recycle area, and an office for the restaurant. Bryant added that the building needs to be either moved or demolished to make room for the parking spaces and it will be more economical for them to lift it up, move it and use it than to demolish it. In addition, Gremmels said the new portion will be on the ground floor with a new foundation. The existing portion will be the second story. Siding on the new portion will match the existing v-groove shiplap, which will be preserved.

Foll then asked about the siding on the Van Sant building. Gremmels said the west side has v-groove shiplap siding and the east side is a more modern material, most likely because that side cannot be seen due to the closeness of the adjacent building. Bryant assured the Commission all siding that has to be replaced will match the existing. When Foll asked about access to the courtyard, Bryant replied there will be a gate on the west side with a walkway that leads to the courtyard.

Skibby questioned if the gable roof on the shed would remain the same and Gremmels said it would. Gremmels and Bryant said all new materials will match the existing, including the vertical corrugated roof material. Bryant added that from the alley, the shed will look about five feet taller, but of course from the courtyard, it will be much taller.

Shostrom asked about the front facade of the Van Sant Building. Gremmels replied the top of the facade is original so it will remain as it is. Bryant commented the second floor deck in the rear will enhance the courtyard area. In addition, he noted there will be a second story walkway from the apartment unit to the shed and an exterior stairway only on the Van Sant Building, not on the shed.

Skibby asked for clarification regarding SHPO approval and Gremmels responded the plans for both the Van Sant Building and the shed have been approved by David Skilton, who is the Tax Incentives Coordinator at SHPO.

Giordano complimented Gremmels and Bryant on their application, stating it is very helpful for the Commission to have quality plans to review. Steele commended and thanked them for turning in plans to restore both buildings, especially since the Commission had previously reviewed plans to demolish them.

Skibby moved and Giordano seconded to recommend approval of the application with all the conditions as stated in the Findings to the Planning Commission. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.

Citing a conflict of interest, Krippaehne stepped down and sat in the audience because she is the architect for this project.

Knox related that this application has a lot of history. The original application was turned in two years ago, and when it went to the Planning Commission last year, the owner was told to either go back and address certain issues that have caused concern or have his project denied. Knox said he has since hired a good architect with lots of patience (Krippaehne). He reminded the Commissioners that Krippaehne had come before them a couple months ago to present preliminary plans, which included a design concept for the future building that will face "A" Street. This application is for a two-story mixed-use addition (924 square feet of lot coverage) to the existing building (Yoga Studio). The future building is not included in this proposal.

Steele commented that she has always had a problem with the Yoga Studio building and fears that this proposal may be granted approval based on the construction of the future building (which will cover up the Yoga Studio) and it may never be built.

Knox stated that Planning Staff feels the design for the addition is compatible with the existing building. He then explained reasons why the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Variance is necessary. Basically, developments are required to have a minimum FAR (ratio of square footage of lot to floor area square footage) of .35. With this application, Hoxmeier will have .18. With the future development on the property, however, he will clearly be right on target with the proposed FAR of .46. Knox explained the other Variance is necessary because the driveway for this project is less than 75 feet from the Grange Co-op's driveway. The Site Design and Use Standards dictate that driveways need to have a distance of more than 75 feet between them. Knox said Hoxmeier's driveway will be on the property line and will only be 24-30 feet from the Grange Co-op's. He has spoken with Grange representatives who cannot make a commitment to share a driveway at this time because they are unsure about future development on their site. In the future, when the Grange decides to develop or sell the property, there will still be an opportunity to share the Hoxmeier property driveway. Knox said Staff is hoping this is a temporary situation. He also said that he understands Steele's concern about the future building but that because of the lot potential, he thinks either Hoxmeier will build or he will sell the property and someone else will.

Giordano expressed his concern about the public plaza area on the corner that is such an important part of this proposal. He would like the condition added that this area remain when the future building is constructed. Since a portion of this application is for the FAR Variance, he does not want the public plaza area mitigated to be located where it is inaccessible to the public. Knox said he is a little leery about dedicating that area as a public plaza because someone could come in and propose to build a strong structure that goes to the corner, similar to the buildings across the street on the other three corners.

Skibby asked what part the future building plays in this proposal and Knox responded that it plays no part except that the Planning Commission asked the owner to show a conceptual design of the future development for that property prior to approval of the addition on the Yoga Studio. Steele said the problem is that there is no guarantee. This proposal addresses Fourth Street but not "A" Street. She said it is too ephemeral; it may happen and it may not.

Chambers said the issue here is what is being proposed for this planning action. He partly agrees with Giordano and partly with Knox. The public plaza is a good concept, but he can also understand the desire to have a building that meets the property lines on both Fourth and "A" Streets.

Foll said the applicant's findings are very specific about the future detached building and he has a problem with defining a building that isn't even being proposed yet. Leighton reminded Foll that the concept exists as a result of the Planning Commission request. Knox said the future building can be any building, however, Planning will be asking for something similar to the concept that Krippaehne has included in this application. This is just a concept for the front building. The planning application does not include the building, it only includes the 1,596 square foot addition to the existing building.

Saladoff declared, however, that because a part of this application is for a Variance for FAR, it seems as though the owner could divide the property, in which case each lot would only need .35 and therefore, it would result in a smaller density. Chambers disagreed, stating a partition would not be allowed because of parking regulations.

Skibby maintained the applicant was required to come up with a vision for his property, which has been achieved. He feels comfortable with this proposal as is.

Giordano asked about the phasing of this project, relating that usually a design for the entire project is approved, but the building is done in phases. Knox replied this is not a typical application.

Leighton wondered why the landscaping is not addressed for the entire property, noting she would like to see how the plaza area will be treated. Shostrom commented that street trees will be planted but he would also like to see the plaza area addressed. Leighton also questioned the lack of screening in the parking area. Shostrom then pointed out the entrance to the commercial space is not inviting and until the future building is constructed, a stronger sense of entry would get the public visibly from "A" Street to the access door of the new facade of the existing building. The Commission agreed that even though this may be temporary, the sense of entry needed to be addressed because the landscaping does not deal with what is not there.

Giordano moved to recommend approval of this application with the condition the public plaza area be included in the design and a landscape plan be incorporated to go with the addition, including where the new building will go, to make a more definitive sense of entry. Leighton seconded the motion and it was passed with a unanimous vote.

Preliminary Plans for a New Mixed Use Building at 665 "A" Street - Colin Swales came before the Commission to present preliminary plans for a new building on a vacant parcel of land he bought in the Railroad District. He said he referred to the Draft Railroad District Plan as he began the design. He wants a new building that will address the historic nature of the Railroad District and the existing architecture. He is proposing to build a concrete and brick structure with arches similar to several buildings in Jacksonville. The facade he is proposing will be brick with brick trim and stucco on the sides to lighten it. He also said he might use galvanized iron on the building or age the iron with a different process. Swales said he has turned in his pre-application information to the Planning Department but wanted full Historic Commission input prior to his meeting on June 26. He then said he is proposing to recess the left side of the building. The arches can have as many doorways as might be needed but not necessarily all will be used. He is hoping to set the building back a bit in order to accommodate a balcony that will span over a public utility easement to the property line. This will also allow for a planting strip.

Swales said two small apartments will be located on the second story. Because the lot is so narrow, he is proposing to have a semi-basement for a portion of the parking area. He noted a two-foot elevation grade differential between the front and back of the property. One space will be located under each deck for each apartment and one space will be uncovered. Retail and/or office space will occupy the ground floor. Swales is also proposing to locate a conservatory or garden space on the flat roof.

Skibby stated there were originally buildings on the Plaza that had arches in the design. He then questioned the material that will be used in the building and Swales explained the top story will be stucco, the bottom front and arches will be brick, and the sides will be stucco.

Saladoff noted that he works in a building just down the street from this project and wondered if the decks on the back of the building will be a safety issue for people backing out of the parking area because many people use the alley as a street. Swales said the chap who bought the adjacent vacant parcel also will be proposing to build a deck and garage similar to what he is proposing. He also clarified that only the center section where the cars would drive under the building would be enclosed.

Leighton asked if the windows behind the arches in the front of the building would be recessed and Swales responded they would be set back from the wall at least 12 inches. He added that this part will still need to be worked out.

Skibby said he was curious about what the other members thought about the brick up to the second floor line and stucco above that. Foll said he likes the break with the different materials. Steele said she is concerned about the two different kinds of brick. Swales reiterated the details will be worked out later. He does not want the building to look old because it will be a modern building, but he would like it to "feel" old. Chambers remarked that the stepping down of the parapet has an Old West look while the rest of the building has more of a classical design. Swales stated the parapet masks the roof elevation. He added the structural bays, which are 22 feet wide, will break up the front facade because he felt the building needed stepping up. Saladoff observed that Swales has a mixture of historical styles, periods and materials. Giordano mentioned there may be too much stepping down and suggested highlighting the middle section only.

After Shostrom inquired about the material proposed for the roof, Swales clarified it will be galvanized metal. Skibby pronounced he would like to see more detail describing the proposed material for the back of the building.

Swales then made clear he will be placing a sun dial on the building (not a clock tower), thus taking advantage of the south facing elevation. All the members thought the sundial would be suitable for the building.

Shostrom observed the downstairs portion of the building holds with the arches, but the upstairs fails. He suggested the same kind of treatment on both levels.

Swales left at this point, however the Commission was not sure it conveyed concerns the members would like to see addressed in the design. Therefore, the Review Board will write comments on the pre-application form regarding the roofline, balcony, parkrow and the fact that the two levels stand too much on their own. The members noted the difficulty in fully evaluating a design when they see if for the first time at the meeting.

Preliminary Plans for Addition to the Winchester Inn (Fordyce Roper House/Southern Oregon Hospital) Located at 35 South Second Street - Architect Ken Ogden presented proposed plans for a glass conservatory addition to the Winchester Inn. He said he and the owner, Michael Gibbs, have looked at several companies that manufacture conservatories and have decided upon a company from England because of the articulation found in the designs. The proposed design keeps true to traditional designs of historical architecture. The addition is proposed for the south side of the Inn, which is currently taken up by lattice and trelliswork. Ogden said this is the side of the building where the dining room is located and the owner would like to be able to use this area year round for guests and customers. Because of the weather (hot and cold) and yellowjackets, the garden area is now only available for use a couple months out of the year. Ogden stated the front elevation of the Inn shows an octagonal shape (conservatory) which will replicate the gazebo. The existing building will not be altered and because the conservatory will be constructed of glass, it will be possible to see through the glass. Conversely, Ogden declared it will be possible to see the gardens from the existing building. In addition to the conservatory, Ogden said they are proposing a new bedroom suite upstairs, which is the premise for the new gable addition also on the south side. The new gable/dormer will replicate the existing one but will be smaller. Detailing and massing of forms will be the same.

Giordano asked if the existing bay would be lost with the conservatory addition. Ogden responded it will be maintained and left in tact, however the conservatory will be constructed in front of it. The banding element will be repeated so a clean line will be maintained between the conservatory and the building. In addition, Ogden clarified there are two octagon conservatories proposed - one will be off the bay window and a smaller one to the left at the end of the building. In between will be a glass enclosure connecting the two.

Skibby stated that in his opinion, the conservatory crowds and conflicts with the existing bay window. He sees this as a loss even if the conservatory portion came further out from the building, as Ogden said was possible. Skibby commented he feels that too much is going on with this proposal. Ogden stated the conservatory will enhance the existing structure and he is treating this with sensitivity. He also feels it is compatible with the building and will become a part of it.

Ogden, after being questioned by Chambers, stated the conservatory would have three layers of glass per section. The exhaust air will flow along the ridgeline and it will have a separate heating ventilation air conditioning (HVAC) system. This will be beneficial in keeping the heat gain down. The large octagon will be the seating area and the smaller one will be the bar area. Ogden also clarified that because of the grade, the smaller octagon will have a retaining wall on the lower portion. The entire exposed portion will be glass and wood. He also stated that although this building is on the National Register of Historic Places but is not in the special assessment program through the State, he has sought input on the proposed additions from SHPO.

Chambers asked if it would be possible to remove the conservatory if someone in the future does not want it. Ogden responded that since the conservatory will only have a minimal point of impact, it could be removed. Skibby maintained the bay window would be lost if the conservatory is attached at that point, even though it could be seen through the glass. Krippaehne agreed with Skibby about covering the bay and stated it would be lost and would greatly impact the Fordyce Roper House/Southern Oregon Hospital regardless of whether one can see through the conservatory or not. Skibby again maintained this is a major historical structure.

Foll asked about the gables on the second story addition and Ogden replied the addition will be smaller and set back from the original gable. The Commission concurred the gable addition would be acceptable as long as it does not minimize the original.

Leighton asked Ogden if the conservatory could be set back further to the west. Giordano explained he did not have a problem with the shape of the conservatory, however, he did have a problem with the location over the bay window.

Owner Michael Gibbs related that if the entire conservatory addition were to be moved more to the west, they could run into drainage problems because of the steep slope at that end of the property. He also would like to keep the walkway while still trying to maintain the historic integrity of the property. Also, if it were moved over, the parking area may be compromised.

Leighton and Shostrom asked if the design could be moved back and simplified. Saladoff added that the conservatory is more elegant than the existing building. Gibbs said if the conservatory is scaled down, it may not be economically feasible. He is trying to create a full-service inn.

Ogden said he hears what the Commission is saying and will take the concerns to mitigate. He also said he would like the conservatory to make a statement on the property, and although conservatories have historically been used for additions, he would like to design something that will have the least impact on the Inn.

Shostrom noted that the property seems filled up already and that the conservatory addition makes it feel too crowded. Gibbs stated he is looking for a dramatic impact. He needs to create a year round viable space, especially since he can't use the existing space where he wants to place the conservatory often enough.

Chambers related that he has been to the Inn numerous times and agreed it would be nice to have the extra space, but he also said it could be overwhelming. In his opinion, he feels there could be a way to get what Gibbs wants and still not lose the integrity of the building.

Krippaehne commented that typically, it is uncommon to see a steep roof pitch on second story gables.

Ogden will redraw a couple different versions and bring them back to the Review Board. Gibbs asked if the elimination of the smaller bar unit would help. The Commission agreed that one octagon would be better than two.

Steele asked if Ogden could come up with a design that would work and still get the viable space that's needed. The objection is to hiding the original bay window because the conservatory addition is a little massive as proposed. Ogden will integrate the Commission concerns into the next design(s). Shostrom suggested the members meet with Gibbs and Ogden on site to better assess what is being proposed. He will set up a meeting and inform the members of the date and time.

Preliminary Plans for Addition at 142 East Main Street - Giordano stepped down and sat in the audience because although he is not directly involved now, he will be involved as the architect in this project. Knox explained that the pre-application conference for this project was on May 29 and because of concerns expressed by the Historic Commission Review Board and Planning Staff, the applicants were asked to present their plans to the full Commission. The applicants propose to build a four-story addition on to the old Fortmiller Building, currently Earthly Goods. Only two stories would be exposed because two will be in the "big hole" that is currently at the site. Staff, in particular, would like a stronger streetscape (alley) presence that invites people to the building. Knox declared the applicants should take advantage of the location and use it. There are approximately 150 spaces in the new parking structure, and most of the people who park there will walk by the proposed addition. Also, the Review Board had concerns about the windows, especially on the fourth floor.

Contractor Walt Stokes presented the plans that were turned in for the pre-application conference. He explained the proposal is to build a four-story addition on to Earthly Goods. The upper floor will house offices - internet sales and office. The two basement floors will be mainly for storage. The ground floor (third floor) will be mainly for receiving and processing.

Saladoff stated the site plan should have a much smaller scale so it would be possible to see the addition elevation in relation to the existing building. Stokes said the addition will be 100 feet from the front property line so it will hardly be visible from East Main Street.

Skibby said that in his opinion, the windows should have a little variety. Saladoff agreed the windows are repetitive but further stated there is an opportunity to add more depth to the building. Stokes agreed and said they have already decided to eliminate the attic area, thus lowering the height of the building. He also said they thought there was too much glass so they don't have a problem with making the windows smaller. When asked about the proposed building materials, Stokes said the exterior will be polished brown block and brown split face block. The body of the building will be the smooth blocks.

Future potential use of the building was discussed. Chambers commented the general idea for the building works, but explained since the area along this alley will be getting more interesting in years to come, they should make the most of it.

Leighton suggested using a heavier crown molding, noting a little variety will make a big difference. Foll said he thought smaller windows would work better in the design. Saladoff related that a building has the effect of slowing people down if it is interesting. While there is a limited amount of space in which to build, the City is looking at making this a more appealing area. With the right design for the building, this can be accomplished.

Knox stated that in looking at the long-term function of the building, the City would probably entertain the idea of making a small courtyard in order to create a space to invite people in. Also, the building could be brought out to the public space, thus creating a stronger sense of entry. Discussion progressed to the 12-foot ramp that will be required and how it can be accomplished.

(Steele left at this time - 10: 23 p.m.)

All agreed a good architect is essential for this project. Chambers commented the Commission would like to see detailing and patterning of the windows. Shostrom explained accurate drawings are needed because the plans that were submitted are not drawn proportionally. Knox added that the applicants should turn in a streetscape drawing from East Main Street in addition to what the building will look like from the alley.

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

Discuss "Golden Spike Commemorative Interpretive Display" location per Bill Emerson's Memo - Because of the lateness, this was not discussed. It will be placed on the July 3 agenda.

There were no items to discuss.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

The next Historic Commission meeting will be on July 3, 2002.

It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m.