Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Design Guidelines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews resurrected 2005 downtown historic design draft and a city‑loaned home rehab at 1453 Montgomery
Summary
Planning staff presented a 2005 draft downtown historic design guidelines document (apparently never adopted) and a staff‑loaned rehab project for 1453 Montgomery; commissioners asked staff to compare the draft with current adopted design guidelines and consider public workshops and Historic Advisory Commission review.
The Planning Commission received a presentation on draft design guidelines for the Downtown Historic Overlay District and on a city‑assisted residential rehab at 1453 Montgomery Street, then gave staff direction to review and report back. Staff said a multi‑volume 2005 draft of downtown design guidelines was found in the files but that they could find no record the document was ever formally adopted.
Staff showed photos of the challenged property at 1453 Montgomery — described as a blue house adjacent to a church playground — and said the city is loaning money for exterior improvements. The staff presenter said the homeowner intends to “replace the windows size for size… the screens will remain. The windows are not tinted,” and that the proposed trim and shutters will be white. The house is the first of two loaned rehab projects; the second will be presented at a later meeting.
Commissioners asked whether the draft 2005 guidelines should be resurrected for formal adoption or whether design reviews should remain a staff‑level administrative review, with only significant external changes routed to the Historic Advisory Commission. Staff noted that municipal code contains development standards for the downtown mixed‑use district (on page 66 of the packet) but that those standards primarily govern new structures rather than changes to existing buildings. Municipal code references to “historic integrity” and the process for landmark designation (Title 17 and related sections) were discussed as the legal basis for any expanded historic review.
One commissioner suggested holding a public workshop to obtain stakeholder input before seeking adoption. Staff recommended a side‑by‑side comparison of the 2005 draft with the city’s adopted design guidelines (three volumes) so commissioners could see which ideas are already reflected in existing policy and which would be new. The commission gave consensus direction for staff to examine the draft, prepare comparisons to existing adopted guidance, and recommend whether certain projects should continue as staff decisions or be routed to the Historic Advisory Commission. Staff said the matter will return for further discussion.
