Historic Preservation Commission begins code review on downtown standards, signage and administrative COAs; plans outreach

Commissioners held a study session on Unified Land Use Code (ULUC) amendments affecting downtown design standards, the major/minor alteration chart, window-sign rules and administrative review of in-kind replacements.

Planner Sarah Duesenberry summarized proposed language that would allow properties within the downtown historic district or individually landmarked buildings to have alterations and minor expansions reviewed and approved through the historic preservation COA process rather than automatically being subject to the downtown zoning district's design standards. The draft aims to reduce conflicts between the downtown zone standards and district-specific preservation decision criteria.

Commissioners questioned definitions and how "alteration" and "minor expansion" would be distinguished from "major expansion" or new construction. Duesenberry said the code defines alteration as any change to 1 or more exterior architectural features and that the proposed amendment seeks to treat alterations differently from substantial new construction. Commissioners asked staff to clarify the language and to make the distinction explicit (for example, specifying minor alteration vs. major alteration) before the proposal advances.

The commission also discussed window signage and the use of vinyl decals. Current downtown sign code provisions prohibit certain decal-style window signs; Duesenberry presented research showing other cities vary in how they handle window decals and suggested the commission consider whether to keep the prohibition or update it. Commissioners generally leaned toward leaving the rule as-is or remaining neutral, and asked staff to preserve the option to refine the language before a formal code amendment.

Duesenberry proposed adding signage considerations to the COA review so Commission/administrative review would cover sign placement and materials for downtown properties; commissioners supported a measured approach that would not change maximum sizes in the sign code but would allow COA review to address historically appropriate placement and materials. Commissioners asked that existing zoning size limits remain unchanged.

The commission discussed whether certain in-kind replacements (for example, replacing a non-original window with a visually similar product) could be moved to an administrative COA process instead of needing a public hearing. Duesenberry said the city's practice is to encourage repair over replacement and to evaluate in-kind requests case-by-case, but that an administrative pathway could reduce regulatory burden for owners of non-contributing or non-original features. Commissioners were split: some favored an administrative option for clearly in-kind replacements; others said the commission should retain review authority for consistency and public transparency.

On the major/minor chart itself — a technical table used to determine when work is considered major and requires a full COA — commissioners asked staff to return with clearer definitions and recommended a targeted outreach: staff will prepare a short survey to send to property owners in designated areas to gauge whether the current process is a barrier to designation or to routine maintenance.

Public comment earlier in the meeting had urged caution on expanding administrative approvals. Pam Chadbourne, a downtown resident, told commissioners during public comment: "I urge you not to accept any administrative approval of those." Commissioners asked staff to prepare sample language, provide examples from peer communities, and to bring a refined draft and outreach plan (including a survey) back to the commission at a future study session. Duesenberry said staff plans to return within weeks with sample language and recommended outreach materials; commissioners agreed to a follow-up study session in approximately three weeks to continue the discussion.