My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
13
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2013
>
121713
>
13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2013 1:21:52 PM
Creation date
12/9/2013 12:47:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
12/17/2013
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
124
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).
View images
View plain text
DRAFT <br /> actually recommended by the State Office of Historic Preservation which was more <br /> vague and requires more interpretation on a case-by-case basis. He noted that these <br /> are at two opposite ends, and the Task Force picked something that was more practical <br /> but also not hard to figure out on a case-by-case basis, basically trying to become <br /> consistent with what the community value is. He stated that the Task Force came up <br /> with one that essentially regulates the front façade, not only the front wall but going <br /> back and getting some volume of the house. He noted that most people interested in <br /> preservation in Pleasanton are most concerned with how the structure presents itself to <br /> the public on the street and not so much with what goes on in the back; the Task Force <br /> addressed the definition to the first front ten feet of the house. <br /> Mr. Dolan stated that the minor change that has occurred since the Council check-in is <br /> the issue that certain walls are designated to be maintained and they might even be the <br /> front wall, but when the siding is pulled off and there are dry rot or termites and all the <br /> studs and everything else are falling apart, this is really not something that should stay if <br /> reconstructing or remodeling the house is being considered. He indicated that the Task <br /> Force wanted to be clear that if it can be documented that that is the case, even though <br /> that is the wall that the City wants to save, fixing it and putting structurally sound <br /> material in would be allowed with the idea that the exterior would match the original <br /> materials in composition, design, color, shape, and dimensions. <br /> 3. The initial conversation about including both residential and commercial properties. <br /> Mr. Dolan noted that there was substantial opposition from commercial property owners <br /> to having anything that could be perceived as additional regulation on their properties. <br /> The Task Force heard that input and ultimately was agreeable to removing from its <br /> recommendations any changes to commercial properties. He further noted that there is <br /> the sub-question of whether it is commercial property or residential use on a commercial <br /> property, and ultimately, the dividing line is if the property is zoned commercial, it would <br /> be considered a commercial property. <br /> 4. Recommended change on a policy that existed and applied only to Ray Street and <br /> Spring Street. <br /> Mr. Dolan stated that this is a neighborhood that was one of the City's older <br /> subdivisions and is mentioned in the Specific Plan as the original subdivision. He <br /> indicated that the research done as part of the Historic Context Statement suggested <br /> that this was not necessarily accurate, but it had another problem created by a policy <br /> which said that there will be no demolition on those properties to the primary structure. <br /> He noted that the Commission had to struggle with this policy relative to the proposed <br /> demolition where the structure itself had not been deemed to be eligible for the <br /> California Register, and this policy was the only reason it was being saved, even if it <br /> had been altered so many times that it did not have any integrity left, and even though <br /> the replacement structure arguably offered as much to the scale and the neighborhood <br /> feel as the existing structure would have. He stated that the Task Force recommended <br /> DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 11/13/2013 Page 4 of 28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.