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
Comments on Historic Preservation Policies <br /> November 10, 2013 <br /> Page 3 <br /> Policy 6. New residential building design, including the design of replacement <br /> buildings for buildings constructed before 1942 which are approved for demolition, <br /> should draw upon the primary exterior features of the Downtown's traditional design <br /> character in terms of materials, colors, details of construction, and setbacks and should <br /> utilize one of the following architectural styles found Downtown dating from pre-1942: <br /> Gothic Revival, ltalianate, Victorian (Queen Anne, Stick, and Folk), Bay Tradition, <br /> Craftsman, Prairie, Mission Revival, Spanish Colonial Revival, Mediterranean Revival, <br /> Minimal Traditional, Vernacular Forms, and FHA Minimum House. (underlining added) <br /> -Major change. The City has never before mandated historic (pre-1942) design <br /> downtown. <br /> -Changes downtown character. Variety, not government mandated design, is <br /> what gives downtown its diverse and appealing character. Downtown is the one <br /> neighborhood in town that was not built to a government or developer design template, <br /> and it glows. <br /> -Makes most existing buildings non-conforming. The vast majority of buildings in <br /> downtown do not conform to the mandated pre-1942 design style. Imposing an <br /> imitation history design mandate will burden home improvement, and prevent natural <br /> updating to solar, energy efficiency, better materials, and other homeowner <br /> preferences. <br /> Recommendation: Rather than "should draw upon" and "should utilize", the language <br /> in Policy 6 could be softened to "are encouraged to draw upon" and "are encouraged to <br /> utilize". <br /> 3. Any Façade Modification is a (prohibited) Demolition. <br /> -Proposed standard: <br /> "Policy 2: . . . Demolition of a residential building for purposes of historic preservation <br /> shall be defined as the removal of the front façade or the most visible facade from the <br /> street, including changes to the roof and roof line. The front or most visible façade shall <br /> be considered the forward most ten feet of the structure. . . ." <br /> -Facade easement. This definition effectively creates a government easement <br /> on the front building façade of the entire downtown. The "People" own the façade <br /> design, which makes the property owner a supplicant in any effort to improve his <br /> property, entirely at the City's mercy, which will seldom be granted. <br /> -Discourages property improvement. If applied literally, the property owner <br /> desiring to change a window or a door, or possibly even door hardware, would be <br /> subject to a 45 day notice and comment period for the public to weigh in on the <br /> "demolition". <br /> -Commercial demolition. Commercial demolition is similarly prohibited in Policy <br /> 3. The Commission should explore what definition of"demolition" will be applied to <br /> commercial demolition? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.