My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 041311
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
PC 041311
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
7/18/2011 3:18:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/13/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
historic resource that is not this building, such as notable homes on each side of the <br />property. <br /> <br />Mr. Dolan stated that it would take an incredible amount of work to obtain an opinion on <br />whether something of this size and location creates that impact, and the answer could <br />No. He noted that staff cannot say definitively as they do not have that <br />expertise. He added that the City would be a in a better position to make that call if it <br />gets professional advice. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson inquired if staff has a sense of the cost for this which, presumably, <br />will be borne by the applicant. <br /> <br />Mr. Dolan replied that the first part would require a minimum amount of research to be <br />done. He stated that his impression when he first saw the building was that it does not <br />look too architecturally special. He noted, however, that after hearing the historical <br />stories of what may potentially have occurred in the building, it is difficult to make that <br />call without a professional opinion. He indicated that answering the particular question <br />does not add to the cost and suggested that it could cost at least $2,000 or possibly <br />twice that. <br /> <br />Referring to Question No. 7, Chair Narum noted that if the specialist returns and states <br />that what is proposed does not fit in, the next question would be what could fit in: if it <br />has to be only one story or if it can be structured so one could make sense of it. <br /> <br />Mr. Dolan replied that it is necessary to try and scope the study so the issues can be <br />identified and, theoretically, be addressed, whether it is the scope or how far up on the <br />site it sits, which is worth talking about. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce inquired whether the concept to be explored is less about the <br />character of the development of the new home and more about what kind of impact a <br />new home would have on the existing home and the integrity of the property as an <br />whole entire historic resource. <br /> <br />Mr. Dolan said that was correct and that this was included under Question No. 7. <br /> <br />1. Would the Planning Commission support the demolition of the house at <br />205 Neal Street? <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson stated that he would support demolition. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pentin stated that he would also support demolition because he has not <br />heard any opposition to the actual demolition of the house and given the type and <br />quality of the structure. He indicated that outside of the size and mass of the proposed <br />house, it seems to him that the applicant is doing everything he can to build the house <br />that fits the neighborhood and the homes that exist there. He concluded that he does <br />not have so much of a problem with the demolition as with what is going in place of it. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MINUTES, April 13, 2011 Page 13 of 19 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.