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
The completion of a historic resource survey to be completed by a consultant after the Council <br /> takes action on the proposed draft amendments will have several benefits: it will save property <br /> owners/applicants time and money since they won't have to hire a consultant to prepare an <br /> individual property survey (which typically can cost about $5,000 and take 30-45 days to <br /> complete); it will let owners/applicants know whether the property is considered historic or not <br /> and allow them to plan their additions/modifications accordingly; and it will aid staff in its <br /> review of projects. <br /> Staff recommends a few minor clarifications/corrections to the Task Force's proposed <br /> amendments and discusses a possible change to the garage location amendments as described <br /> below. <br /> Staff-Recommended Changes <br /> Downtown Specific Plan <br /> Based on the Council's direction and the feedback from the Downtown's commercial property <br /> owners, the Task Force intended to exclude commercially-zoned properties and make the new <br /> historic preservation policies and regulations apply to residential buildings in residential zones <br /> as there are some homes in a commercial zone such as Spring Street or an office zone such as <br /> Old Bernal Avenue. In drafting the new sections of the Specific Plan, staff forgot to add <br /> language to clarify this when it was presented to the Task Force. Therefore, staff added <br /> clarifying language to Historic Resources Polices 1, 2, and 3 on pages 7 and 8 of the draft <br /> Specific Plan amendments (Exhibit A). These changes are shown in highlight. <br /> Downtown Design Guidelines <br /> The mass and bulk compatibility policy in the Specific Plan had gone through various drafts <br /> before the Task Force selected its final form. There is a similar mass and bulk guideline in the <br /> Downtown Design Guidelines (Height and Mass bullet two on page 35) that staff forgot to <br /> update to incorporate the Task Force's final changes to the Specific Plan policy. The attached <br /> amendments to the Guidelines (Exhibit B) include this correction. <br /> Possible Change to Garage Location Amendments <br /> While staff supports making the Specific Plan and Guidelines consistent with respect to garage <br /> regulations, staff questions whether using the Task Force's recommended greater than 60 ft. lot <br /> width would potentially allow more homes to be built with a garage-dominated front elevation <br /> in the one area of the city where it would look most out of character with the surrounding homes <br /> and conflict with the architectural styles that are being required. <br /> The Task Force had originally contemplated using a 50 ft. lot width as the cutoff for requiring a <br /> detached garage. The Task Force and some members of the public were concerned about the <br /> width of the house that would remain if you were required to place the drive aisle leading to the <br /> detached garage on the side of the house. However, staff notes that if a two-car garage was <br /> P13-2446/P13-4447/P13-4448 Page - 11 - November 13, 2013 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.