Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Keith Swink, Tom Giordano, Alex Krach, Joanne Krippaehne, Terry Skibby, Sam Whitford, and Jay Leighton.
Absent Members: Rob Saladoff
Council Liaison: John Morrison
High School Liaison: None Appointed
SOU Liaison: None Appointed
Staff Present: Associate Planner Mark Knox and Secretary Sonja Akerman

At 7:06 p.m., Chair Shostrom called the meeting to order.

Knox and the Historic Commission presented Akerman with a framed photograph from Skibby's collection and a framed certificate for 19 years of providing staff support to the Commission. This will be her last meeting.

City Recorder Barbara Christensen and City Attorney Paul Nolte presented a training session on being a commission member. Topics included 1) definition of a public meeting, 2) public meeting requirements, 3) parliamentary procedures, 4) public records law, and 5) ethics.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Most members had site visits; none had ex parte contacts.

Knox reported this application is for a transfer of ownership and addition of a seventh unit to the Bayberry Inn. The owner is proposing to convert the existing carriage house off Lori Lane for the additional unit. Windows and details will be added to the structure. Knox then presented revised plans for the carriage house that the applicant had just brought in.

Owner/applicant Dermot O'Brien stated he and his wife are the new owners. He clarified the current use of the carriage house is for a garage, as it is not conducive to other uses at the moment. O'Brien stated the existing floor will need to be taken out and redone no matter what the use of the building.

Most members had site visits; none had ex parte contacts.

Knox explained this application is for a Transfer of Ownership for an approved Bed & Breakfast the applicant has previously owned and operated. The applicant has moved back to this property and will operate the Second Street Cottages as the owner.

Knox stated this application is also for a Transfer of Ownership. Mary Nelke (applicant for previous action) has sold the property to the Gays, who will also operate the business. There have been no issues with this property and Staff is recommending approval.

Swink stepped down because he lives adjacent to this property. Most members had site visits; none had exparte contacts.

Knox explained the applicant is proposing to convert her non-conforming building as a second residential unit on her property. All conditions have been met, including parking, which will be located adjacent to the structure off the alley. A neighbor on Mead Street has concerns about the deck on the north side, but Knox stated the applicant and neighbor are in communication regarding these concerns. Proposed exterior changes include the addition of a deck, a large window (which will replace the garage door) and windows in the roof area on the north side. A door will be installed and a ground floor deck will be added to the east side. Windows will also be added on the south and west sides of the building.

Giordano stated there could be a lot of building issues that would affect the design. Knox related Condition 6 states that the recommendations of the Historic Commission/Review Board shall be incorporated into the building permit submittals. Giordano asked if it could come back to the full Commission if the Review Board is not comfortable with the design and Knox said it could.

Shostrom related the large window on the lower story of the north elevation is off center and there are incompatible openings with the proposed windows for the rest of the structure. He would like to see the large window lined up or stacked. Double hung windows would help with the symmetry. The overall asymmetrical design is questionable.

Skibby commented that even though the structure is in the alley, it is important to pay attention to details in the design. The large horizontal window is inappropriate and the door is out of scale.

Giordano stepped down because he is the architect on record for this project. All members had visited the site recently or prior to the February meeting. None had exparte contacts.

Knox reported the hearing for Outline Plan approval was heard in February. Historic Commission comments and suggestions were incorporated into the Final Plan design. The proposal is for a 13-unit PUD and will consist of four separate buildings, including the existing house on the property that was moved and renovated. The four apartments in the remaining three buildings will be rental units. The stairwells, while not internal as suggested, were centered.

Skibby asked about the existing structure that will be removed. Applicant Evan Archerd replied most of the building is actually on the adjacent property with a small portion on this site. The building is not in good condition.

Archerd, 120 North Second Street, stated the project is essentially the same as what was proposed in February. He thanked the Commission for the suggestion of moving the stairwell and stated he is pleased with the outcome. By centering the stairwell, more light is let in and the design is much better.

Archerd clarified for Krach the units will not be condominiums as stated in the findings. They will be part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and rented out. Although they have no plans to do so, each building could be sold, but not the individual apartment units.

Shostrom commented the design elements look great, however, there are two items of concern for him. One is that the 7-inch siding looks a little less detailed than if 6-inch siding were used (which would result in a 5-inch exposure). The other is that while the double hung windows are satisfactory, if they were a little longer with a 2 to 1 ratio, they would match the windows in the existing house. Archerd will look into the cost. Shostrom noted the positive aspects of the applicants' use of real cedar shingles.

Swink asked if the rear elevation windows would be sliders as depicted in the drawings and Archerd responded the windows will be double hung. Swink stated that continuity is important so he was glad to hear that.

Krippaehne stated the plans are very nice but she is uncomfortable with the entry to the second floor unit with the valley coming down in the center of the stairway. Shostrom concurred, as did Archerd. Krippaehne was confident the design of this area could be changed by playing with it a bit.

Leighton asked for more clarification as to why the existing small structure would need to be removed. Archerd replied it is in the middle of the proposed driveway, it straddles two properties, it has no foundation and it is in such poor condition it cannot be moved. Since it is less than 500 square feet, there is no need to receive approval from the Building Appeals Board. Archerd added there was never a consideration to keep it.

Skibby said he feels comfortable with the way the design has evolved, appreciates the fact that the existing house was renovated and likes the project overall.

Shostrom and Giordano noted site visits; no members had exparte contacts.

Knox stated that while this property is not in the Historic District, the site is Mt. View Cemetery, which is on the National Register of Historic Places. Public Works is proposing to place a 1,280 square foot storage facility (which had been at the Waste Water Treatment Plant) in order to provide storage for landscaping maintenance equipment and City document archives. The metal structure is 16 feet high and will be located on the opposite side of the street from the mausoleum near the bike path next to an existing smaller metal storage building.

Giordano said he runs on this route so he passes by the site frequently. Generally, the cemetery is very nice, but the corner where this building is proposed to be located has a lot of debris, mounds of dirt, etc. The whole site needs to be screened as it detracts from the main part of the cemetery. Shostrom related he had been to the site and noticed the foundation for the building had already been poured. He also noted he was appalled at the site. There is an older existing building that is approximately 10' x 10' that has horizontal siding plus another metal building. The proposed building is 16 feet high and it will be very difficult to screen with landscaping. There was no landscape plan with the application. In addition, the building will be visible from the mausoleum. Shostrom said there seems to be no regard for what the place is. The bike path traverses the property on two sides and he feels the City should be more sensitive to the surrounding area. He asked if the building could be 8 feet instead of 16 feet high because it would be much easier to screen a shorter structure. Knox responded that height and security are both issues that will need to be addressed and added the Tree Commission will also hear the proposal.

Leighton asked if the building really belongs in the cemetery. If it will be used for storing archives, will there be an archival environment in the building? Shostrom stated the plans indicate the building will be unheated. Krippaehne also asked if the building belonged at this site. If the building will be used for archival storage, why does it need to be on a National Register site? Krippaehne said she sees this as two sets of standards - one for the public and one for the City. Knox stated the use issue is a Council and Public Works decision. The Historic Commission can recommend design changes only.

Swink commented he is amazed the City can plop such a building where it is proposed. This is an opportunity to improve the property rather than create an eyesore. Whitford agreed with Krippaehne that the City should not have a lower standard than the private sector. Swink wondered if something else with a more compatible design could be built on the foundation that was recently poured. Giordano stated that at the very least, a landscape plan is needed. Swink added that he has been in several cemeteries and noticed that most all the outbuildings are designed to blend in with the surroundings.

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:

Revised Plans for Addition to Unitarian Church Located at 87 Fourth Street - Bill Emerson presented revised plans, addressing some of the issues that were discussed during the May meeting. Specifically, he removed details that matched the original church that stood on the same site, the windows of the addition are more plain but have retained their individuality, the span of the gable on the "C" Street elevation has been reduced and centered to look less residential. Emerson also presented s scale model of the existing church and proposed addition.

He then stated he has proposed a subtle difference in color to distinguish the two buildings. In the rear, he has repeated the gables, emulating the roofline (though not the same pitch) of the existing church and repeated window elements. The church will evolve from being not in scale with the neighborhood to an important building creating a division between the residential area and the church. He reminded the Commission the addition will be a social hall.

Krippaehne explained she did (and still does to a lesser extent) feel the addition looks too "housey." Knox noted that under the Secretary of Interior Standards, it is necessary to make sure a new addition on a historic building looks separate from the original structure, keeping in mind that the differences can be subtle and in the materials used.

Leighton suggested using even taller windows, not necessarily arches, on the Fourth Street side to pull away from a residential look even more. Swink stated he thought the scale of the addition was appropriate to the site. Whitford commented he does not think the addition should duplicate any part of the original church because it is gone. In further discussions of the design, some members thought it read as residential and some didn't.

Krippaehne again said she felt the building looked too residential. Emerson pointed to the exterior elevation drawing and said the model did not show the 4-foot of drop from the finish floor to the grade on the "C" Street side. Shostrom stated that could make a difference and asked what kind of treatment was going to be used between the floor and the foundation. Emerson responded he did not know if he would show any division between the two surfaces but planned to run the plaster down to the grade of the foundation. Shostrom thought that would help with the height. Skibby said there should be a rendering to show what the model could not show. Emerson agreed and said he also thinks there should be a drawing of the streetscape.

Design issues for Emerson to consider are:

• Make the windows on the Fourth Street side more substantial (taller and wider) to help give the addition more of a civic or public look.
• Look into separating the buildings more.
• Although the back porch has functionality due to the use of the addition, the back porch and gables in the rear give a more residential look.
• Elongate the roof in the rear so it is more like 60 feet rather than 40 feet.
• Simplify all three proposed gables into one gable.
• Simplify the details of the windows and trim.

Articles for City Source - Krach will have his article to Management Analyst Ann Seltzer by the end of the month.

National Historic Preservation Week Recap - Will be discussed next month.

Co-Sponsorship with Conservation Commission for Fall Workshop - Will be discussed next month.

Memo to Council Regarding Authorization for Multiple Listing for National Register - This will be discussed at next month's meeting. Krach volunteered to write the memo after the discussion.

Possible National Register Nomination for Lithia Springs Property - There was nothing new to report.

Carnegie Library Restoration - There was nothing new to report.

Brown Bag Lunch Ideas - Will be discussed next month.

ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA - Staff was asked to add vinyl siding issues to the July agenda.

With a motion by Leighton and second by Skibby, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m.