Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables contentious Community Appearance Board overhaul after members and volunteers raise concerns
Summary
Planning & Zoning members heard a long staff presentation proposing to move CAB review earlier, narrow some CAB review areas and allow staff to approve minor items. Multiple CAB members and former members urged caution; the board voted 7–0 to table the ordinance for further staff‑CAB discussion.
City planning staff presented an ordinance to revise the Community Appearance Board's (CAB) powers and duties, move design review earlier in the project review process, allow administrative review for certain minor building permits and paint colors consistent with an approved palette, and modernize the board's supplemental criteria and membership.
Erin Sita summarized the package as aiming to "allow for advisory review of site plans" and to streamline procedural language while preserving CAB input at earlier stages. The ordinance would give the CAB a role in providing recommendations on architectural elevations and landscape plans at the site‑plan stage while allowing staff to administratively approve limited façade and paint‑color changes consistent with approved palettes.
The proposal generated sustained concern from current and former CAB members and several board members. Jessica Dormblazer, who identified herself as a CAB member and an architect, said volunteers frequently postponed items because applicants submitted incomplete materials; she warned that moving some review to the site‑plan stage could create new delays and that decisions made early might be diluted later in processing. "I am a community appearance board member... I appreciate that the city is trying to come up with ways to make this more efficient, but Mr. Shadd just mentioned that a lot of the reviews that CAB will have will actually happen during the site plan approval process. That is actually less efficient, in my opinion," she told the board.
Several board members pressed staff on specific changes they found problematic: removing a requirement that the CAB specifically approve design and materials used to screen parking structures adjacent to residential parcels, exempting duplex properties from CAB review, and reducing membership and licensed‑professional representation. Members also raised enforcement concerns — whether CAB recommendations and conditions are consistently carried through to final permits and inspections. "I've built things with certain approvals from CAB... and when it came down to final inspection, nobody ever caught that we did something different," a board member said in the discussion.
Staff said the 20% threshold for administrative review came from prior CAB discussion and that the proposed changes were intended to make review more consistent and predictable, not to eliminate CAB input. Development Services Director Brandon Shad and staff acknowledged the board's role and said staff could use outside consultants or retain professional reviewers when necessary.
Outcome: After extensive debate and public comment, the board voted 7–0 to table the ordinance for one month so staff and CAB members could try to reconcile concerns before the council public hearing.
Next steps: Staff will transmit the board's recommendation to city council noting the request for additional review; the item is scheduled for a council public hearing unless the council accepts the board's recommendation to delay action.
