12 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT work. He stated that for that reason, he personally applauds this survey and thinks it is outstanding because it clearly shows how it is going to translate out. He noted that the devil's advocate approach to how staff works out is a good question; however, he really does think that staff tries to balance it. With regard to the first question of Option 1 or Option 2, whether design review is applied on everything or only on a specific number of things, Commissioner Balch stated that he is actually grappling that, although a lot of speakers went for Option 2, he feels that after listening to that Council meeting, when people are going to be in design review and everything is in design review, they just know they are in design review, and it is pretty easy and they learn it. He noted that when people start to say what specifically is in, it lends to subjectivity as to what is not in and what is in, and they do not know if they are in; they have to interpret that they are in for design review versus they are in carte-blanche from the start. He stated that he agrees with that, maybe with some clarification or ideas, but he also understands that it could be overarching or overreaching such that he wonders what the negative is. Commissioner Balch stated that Option 1 would be everything is in except what would look like in Option 2, which says only these are in. He asked how far apart these two are: if everything is in "except," how long is that list versus the list that staff has come up with that only says only "these things" are in? If only mailboxes and signage are excluded in terms of the address sign, why does it not state "except for those two things?" Mr. Weinstein stated that the complete list of items is probably a subject of one's imagination, as there are probably things that can never be anticipated that would be captured by the more comprehensive approach to regulating the first floor of historic buildings. He noted that obvious suspects are things like the color of the house or the address number on the wall, and there are probably a lot of other things like mailboxes and other features that would not be encompassed in Option 2. He pointed out that the intent under Option 2 is to make it easier for the applicant by making the features that would be subject to additional review as precise as possible. He added that maybe some work can be done on those, but the City does not want to review house numbers and paint color; the preference is for applicants who wants to make a change to their first floor to look at this list and figure out whether their project is subject to this additional review or not. Mr. Otto added that there are currently no guidelines or regulations to help staff review, for example, mailboxes and things like that, so it would be getting to the point where staff is reviewing things and coming up with their own subjective comments on those things. He pointed that one of the criticisms for starting this Task Force process was to try to get predictable results each time so people at least know what they are subject to being reviewed on or not. Commissioner Balch rephrased his statement: The applicants are in design review except that their mailbox, their address numbering and lettering and the color of their house are not in. He stated that he really liked the structure of Option 2, but what he is DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 10/14/2015 Page 16 of 18