PC 101415 - Laserfiche WebLink

Dan McCarthy stated that he lives in one of the 88 houses that qualified as a historic resource. He indicated that he downloaded and looked at the 778 -page Historic Resource Survey report; he found it to be very well done and appreciated the energy that was put into creating that document. He stated that he is a big believer of retaining the historical significance of the historic homes in Downtown and appreciates Option 2 versus the Option 1 because "all" could include anything in any legal document which would mean they may not even be able to mow their lawn because that could be an alteration to the front. Mr. McCarthy stated that they purchased their home, which is located right across the street from the bandstand park where the Concerts at the Park are held, less than a year ago. He requested that, if the Commission is possibly taking away or asking for additional review of any modifications made to the front of the house in that first ten feet, there be consideration to waive the design review fee associated with any modification they wish to make. He noted that some of the things they have done since they have been in the house, such as change the numbers, repair part of the banisters, and things like painting is part of their job as owners to help preserve one of these 88 historic homes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Nagler inquired what the implications are, other than more design review scrutiny, of being considered a historic resource both from a permitting perspective and beyond, and if there are benefits that come to the homeowner for being listed as an historic resource. Mr. Otto replied that there is no direct benefit and that being the historic resource basically subjects the house to additional regulations that the City has already adopted. He added that the Council and the Task Force discussed other potential programs that the City could implement, such as the Mills Act, but the Council ultimately decided not to do that. Commissioner Nagler presented an example with a question of what would happen if this amendment is ultimately adopted: A homeowner comes in to apply for design review approval for a modification to one of these 88 homes, and prior to this being implemented, a window was changed out that is a non - original window frame to the house; but the owner is not asking for change to be made to that but some other change to the house. Does this review give staff the opportunity, as part of the approval, to basically require fixes that are not part of the application, particularly in the first ten feet that were previously exempt from review but now subject to review? Mr. Otto replied that staff might suggest it but definitely could not require it. Commissioner Balch added to the scenario: A homeowner has the window changed out to a vinyl window, and the design review requirement now comes down like a curtain. The owner wants to change the stucco or cladding or the exterior siding, and the building inspector comes out and says that the window be changed as well. Does the owner have to prove that the window was done before the design review process? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 14, 2015 Page 14 of 35