My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 030911
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
PC 030911
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
2/2/2012 10:52:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/9/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
While many expressed a desire to make the process more user friendly for <br />homeowners in the downtown, other downtown property owners shared their <br />concern for what felt like control and meddling. Unfortunately since that time, <br />citizen committees have been formed creating a layer of confusion and <br />bureaucracy. To many property owners the process has now become exactly <br />what was feared back in 2001. neighborhood preservation groups formed <br />downtown have now become another stumbling block for modifications and <br />improvements to our downtown. <br /> <br />The Downtown Improvement Association hopes to truly and finally clarify and <br />streamline this process for property owners in the downtown area. Thank you for <br />taking the time to listen and understand our position. We look forward to working <br />with residents and staff to make a more concise process a reality in our <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Huff inquired what the various information about historic districts in the Downtown <br />means in terms of creativity for designers, if this would allow designers to add onto the <br />rear or sides of structures, or if there would be limitations that would restrict the ability of <br />architects. He indicated that the process should be made clear and questioned <br />restrictions placed on residences and their repercussions. He noted that the <br />Department of the Interior standards were meant to be for national buildings and now <br />have been applied to all projects. He thanked staff for what builders have been able to <br />do on a case-by-case basis. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank stated that part of why he was thinking about the ordinance route <br />is that over the years, some homeowners have made it clear that they have given up <br />because of a convoluted system. He indicated that he can cite developers who have <br />come to the City and have asked to make the guidelines specific and clear so they can <br />move forward. He asked Mr. Huff whether this is what he supported in a historic <br />ordinance or something different. He further asked if homeowners would continue to <br />come to the City if the process that exists today remains in place. <br /> <br />Mr. Huff replied that he is not supportive of a historic ordinance. He stated that what <br />exists today is what has been in place from 2001, and it needs to be re-defined so it <br />does not handcuff designers and planning staff in evaluating the historic nature of <br />houses. He noted there are groups in town that would look at every single house in the <br />historic Downtown district that is older than 50 years as something that cannot be <br />touched, which he feels is not right because this would not be truly appropriate if it were <br />applied to the entire City. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank stated that his intent with the ordinance is not to handcuff <br />developers but to cut through some of the other bureaucracy the City has encumbered <br />itself with. <br /> <br />Mr. Huff stated that he felt a historic ordinance in the Downtown would pretty much shut <br />down the Downtown. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MINUTES, March 9, 2011 Page 15 of 24 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.