SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

were told by the planning department that in spite of the fact that the 50 year old building had no architectural or historical value, (as attested to by an historical consultant) we would have to save it merely because it was located in an historical district. We wanted to replace it with a period representative Craftsman or Victorian home but instead had to settle for a home that was a compromise for everyone because it looked like the old one. The good news is that we finally got it through the planning process and the kids will shortly be moving in. 10) The feeling that I have been getting as a result of talking to my friends and neighbors, both within and outside of, the historical districts, is that more rules and limitations on the rights of property owners are unwanted, unnecessary, and unwarranted. It seems to me, that a very few people have been pushing very hard for more regulations and an historical ordinance. In my observations, and from what 1 am seeing and hearing, in my opinion, those people are very much in the minority. We have seen the result of the "calling to arms" of the property owners and business owners in the downtown business area and now, as residential owners are becoming more aware of the push for additional control by the city, the residential owners are mobilizing as well. I have trouble understanding what the big push for an ordinance is all about. Driving around the historical districts, it seems to me that what we want to see, is precisely what we are seeing. Older homes are gradually being remodeled and upgraded, additions are being made to the rearmost portions of the homes instead of the frontal areas, inefficient windows and doors are being replaced, the facades and visible parts of the historical homes are being preserved, and the charm of the residential neighborhood is not declining but instead has been increasing over the years. If there are a few examples of abuses because there are not enough rules, those abuses must be very few. I have heard of only 2 examples. if this is true, is it expedient or fair to subject all property owners living in the historical districts to additional layers of rules and ordinances because of a very few persons who do things with their homes that one group of persons objects to? 11) If the mission of the Historical Task Force is to truly simplify and clarify the process of upgrading and modifying the homes in the historical districts, or even removing older homes that have no historical or architectural value, whether they are 50 years old or not, placing additional burdens on the property owners is not the way to accomplish this. What possible help ,would result from additional rules and regulations like requiring owners to go through the planning department for such mundane things as exterior repainting, replacing windows and doors, renewing rotten or termite ridden fascias and siding, changing door and gate hardware and so forth? Even landscaping alterations fit into this realm of control. It just seems totally unnecessary, as the City already has the authority to control the important things. One of the answers is to have the responsible city people exercise more diligence in enforcing the already existing rules and guidelines as to massing, architectural styles, and guidelines and working with the applicants in helping to steer them toward the acceptable solutions. Thank you for your consideration in evaluating this point of view. Jerry H 3