PC 101415 - Laserfiche WebLink

what they are doing in a way that discourages potentially a continued effort to improve these structures? Mr. Beaudin replied that it is the former question and that this document will just help staff to do that better. He stated that when applicants come to the counter and are told that they have a potentially historic structure, the $5,000 it would cost them to figure that out was an impediment to what they want to do with their house. He pointed out that this document is designed to solve that and to do it all very quickly for the homeowners. Commissioner Nagler stated that he would argue that it is the latter and that the homeowner would say: "What do you mean I have a historical home? Just tell me now what my window looks like." Commissioner Balch stated that he remembers the meeting where the Council talked about a historic overlay and when the Task Force brought it back. He recalls there were a lot of speakers who were very much concerned about government intervention or government involvement in things they did not think were necessary because in their opinion, the residents who own these homes own them because they like that style, and by the nature of owning one, they want to keep it up. He indicated that he does not necessarily agree with that, but that was just generally a comment that was frequent at that meeting. He stated that he also remembers the Council really having difficulty trying to do a "one size fits all" approach, which the Council realized was not going to 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 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 14, 2015 Page 17 of 35