My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 020911
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
PC 020911
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
4/20/2011 4:01:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/9/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Pentin stated that he is in the same quandary as other Commissioners. <br />He noted that he has only seen the project once, and from what he has read and what <br />has been presented, he has been trying to find a compelling reason to save the house <br />as he has seen many houses in town that have been renovated and are gorgeous. He <br />continued, however, that when he looks at this project, he sees how far it has come <br />through the process and how the applicant has developed an entire plan without the <br />house. He commented that the Commission has really not made a finding to save it. <br />He pointed out that staff has asked an authority to tell the Commission what the house <br />really means, and the consultant has indicated that it does not rank as a heritage house <br />to be saved. He noted that he has also questioned what the house would look like with <br />high density development built around it and what would be accomplished by doing this. <br />He added that the street will also change with the addition of curbs and sidewalks; he <br />indicated that he would support the demolition of the house. <br /> <br />Chair Narum agreed with Commissioner Blank that this is a very tough decision. She <br />stated that she also attended the California Preservation Foundation Conference, and <br />she supported demolishing the house but for a different reason. She noted that the <br />integrity of the street is already gone, and there is only one other house left on that <br />street that is more than 50 years old. She indicated that she believes the bigger <br />question is that there are a lot of other neighborhoods that have been identified as <br />having many historic, older homes which may not meet any of the preservation criteria <br />evaluated here but which does not mean they should be torn down. She indicated that <br />those areas are more consistent and where the attention should be. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce stated that she would like the Commissioners to remember this <br />discussion and this house when they return and talk about putting together some kind of <br />Historic Preservation Ordinance for the City. She noted that if something were in place <br />30 years ago, this conversation would not be happening, and the street would be intact <br />with lovely houses. She indicated that she would hate to see this happen to the rest of <br />the City. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank stated that he was very much in support of a conservation <br />ordinance and that if something were in place five years ago, this discussion would not <br />be happening. <br /> <br />Chair Narum agreed that there is a need to protect the integrity of older neighborhood <br />homes. <br /> <br />The Commission then discussed the questions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report: <br /> <br />Does the Commission support the <br />demolition of the existing house? <br />Commission supporting the demolition. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MINUTES, February 9, 2011 Page 14 of 41 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.