Laserfiche WebLink
buildings. He noted that obvious suspects are things like the color of the house or the <br />address number on the wall, and there are probably a lot of other things like mailboxes <br />and other features that would not be encompassed in Option 2. He pointed out that the <br />intent under Option 2 is to make it easier for the applicant by making the features that <br />would be subject to additional review as precise as possible. He added that maybe <br />some work can be done on those, but the City does not want to review house numbers <br />and paint color; the preference is for applicants who wants to make a change to their <br />first floor to look at this list and figure out whether their project is subject to this <br />additional review or not. <br />Mr. Otto added that there are currently no guidelines or regulations to help staff review, <br />for example, mailboxes and things like that, so it would be getting to the point where <br />staff is reviewing things and coming up with their own subjective comments on those <br />things. He pointed that one of the criticisms for starting this Task Force process was to <br />try to get predictable results each time so people at least know what they are subject to <br />being reviewed on or not. <br />Commissioner Balch rephrased his statement: The applicants are in design review <br />except that their mailbox, their address numbering and lettering and the color of their <br />house are not in. He stated that he really liked the structure of Option 2, but what he is <br />also trying to realize is that the smartest position he can take is that he does not know <br />what he does not know. He asked what would happen if something comes up that is <br />not in Option 2 that should have had a design review that was not foreseen today? If <br />specific items that are pointed out as excluded, which are very good examples, how far <br />is that from Option 2 the other way, going positive of things that are in? <br />Mr. Otto replied that staff looked at things that were important enough to establish <br />guidelines for. <br />Commissioner Balch agreed that listing what the City finds important made sense. He <br />indicated that he is fine with supporting Option 2. He stated that he is open with moving <br />forward with exploring the topic of expanding design review authority to non - historic <br />homes, but indicated that he was not sure how he will ultimately vote on such an <br />amendment. He added that if he felt it was too overreaching, he will vote no. <br />Commissioner Ritter stated that he is not supportive of over - regulation as there is <br />already a lot of that. He indicated that he is supportive of empowering staff to make <br />good decisions, and the design guidelines would provide that everything that comes is <br />would be reviewed that way. He added that he supported the Survey as it saves costs <br />when purchasing or remodeling a house. He noted that he does not want to penalize <br />the 88 homes, but rather to work with homeowners to maintain their homes and <br />encourage them to keep the historic value of their homes. He added that he liked the <br />fee waiver idea. He indicated that he supports Option 2 and agrees with Commissioner <br />Balch regarding Staff Recommendation No. 4. <br />Chair Allen asked the Commissioners if they are open to have the No. 4 <br />recommendation come back to the Commission for review. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 14, 2015 Page 18 of 35 <br />