13 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT actually recommended by the State Office of Historic Preservation which was more vague and requires more interpretation on a case-by-case basis. He noted that these are at two opposite ends, and the Task Force picked something that was more practical but also not hard to figure out on a case-by-case basis, basically trying to become consistent with what the community value is. He stated that the Task Force came up with one that essentially regulates the front façade, not only the front wall but going back and getting some volume of the house. He noted that most people interested in preservation in Pleasanton are most concerned with how the structure presents itself to the public on the street and not so much with what goes on in the back; the Task Force addressed the definition to the first front ten feet of the house. Mr. Dolan stated that the minor change that has occurred since the Council check-in is the issue that certain walls are designated to be maintained and they might even be the front wall, but when the siding is pulled off and there are dry rot or termites and all the studs and everything else are falling apart, this is really not something that should stay if reconstructing or remodeling the house is being considered. He indicated that the Task Force wanted to be clear that if it can be documented that that is the case, even though that is the wall that the City wants to save, fixing it and putting structurally sound material in would be allowed with the idea that the exterior would match the original materials in composition, design, color, shape, and dimensions. 3. The initial conversation about including both residential and commercial properties. Mr. Dolan noted that there was substantial opposition from commercial property owners to having anything that could be perceived as additional regulation on their properties. The Task Force heard that input and ultimately was agreeable to removing from its recommendations any changes to commercial properties. He further noted that there is the sub-question of whether it is commercial property or residential use on a commercial property, and ultimately, the dividing line is if the property is zoned commercial, it would be considered a commercial property. 4. Recommended change on a policy that existed and applied only to Ray Street and Spring Street. Mr. Dolan stated that this is a neighborhood that was one of the City's older subdivisions and is mentioned in the Specific Plan as the original subdivision. He indicated that the research done as part of the Historic Context Statement suggested that this was not necessarily accurate, but it had another problem created by a policy which said that there will be no demolition on those properties to the primary structure. He noted that the Commission had to struggle with this policy relative to the proposed demolition where the structure itself had not been deemed to be eligible for the California Register, and this policy was the only reason it was being saved, even if it had been altered so many times that it did not have any integrity left, and even though the replacement structure arguably offered as much to the scale and the neighborhood feel as the existing structure would have. He stated that the Task Force recommended DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 11/13/2013 Page 4 of 28