PC 101415 - Laserfiche WebLink

is adopted, it would add time and cost to owners wanting to make minor changes to their non - historic homes, but that could ensure that the modifications to those homes are compatible with the architectural style and detailing of the existing home. He added, however, that it may not necessarily have a significant effect or benefit on the surrounding homes that are historic. He indicated that staff is willing to entertain this amendment; however, because of the way the hearing was noticed tonight which did not include language for non - historic homes, if the Commission wanted to pursue this, the Commission can make a recommendation to Council to do so. He indicated that if the Council wished to pursue it, the Council would basically refer the matter back to the Commission for a noticed public hearing, and the Commission can then make a recommendation to the Council on the exact language to be used and any other parameters the Commission would want to include with that. He noted that the Council would make the final decision on the matter. Commissioner Nagler commented that the matter could also just be continued and then have it noticed appropriately. Mr. Otto replied that it could be done that way, but staff did not want to delay the current Code amendment for historic homes or the adoption of the historic survey so they could be implemented immediately; homeowners would not have to do their own survey, and the historic structures in the City can be protected. Chair Allen clarified with Mr. Otto that the Commission could recommend to the Council either Option 1 or Option 2, and if the Commission desired, to look at expanding the design review; and the Council could potentially approve or disapprove the amendment, and either direct or not direct the Planning Commission to do further work in defining what Commission wants to do with the houses that did not meet the Register criteria. Mr. Otto clarified that was correct. Commissioner Nagler referred to Commissioner Ritter's earlier questions on the idea to expand is really tied to what the current differences are between the review for historic resource properties and post -1942 homes. He asked, if an applicant comes in wanting a change to a home built in 1952, what exactly would need to come to the City for design review and what would not. He indicated that if the intent is to maintain the integrity of the original architecture of the home and have it remain appropriate to the neighborhood, that would take some significant architectural change to the home to have a negative impact on the architectural integrity of that house, and that level of change already requires design review. He noted that what is really being talked about here is the delta being things like first -story window size or bannisters. Commissioner Balch noted that the amendment also has demolition, so if someone theoretically lets his or her home go, it could make an impact in value, and without that Code amendment, the City could not enforce the owner to maintain it. Chair Allen inquired if it is only the first ten feet. Mr. Otto replied that demolition by neglect would apply to the entire structure. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 14, 2015 Page 9 of 35