My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
09
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2014
>
012114
>
09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/18/2015 2:57:30 PM
Creation date
1/15/2014 2:11:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
1/21/2014
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
9
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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 CITY OF <br /> e - ha.a <br /> _p ...,.. i I ... SDP A:EWENJ FAIL MATERIAL. <br /> i'r;�vi lo <br /> FLE <br /> T N® After�.�e�Distributhe tion City of Packet Council <br /> MEMORANDUM Date -- -� <br /> Date: December 16, 2013 <br /> To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council <br /> From: Nelson Fialho, City Manager , <br /> Brian Dolan, Director of Community Development flj) <br /> Subject: Historic Preservation and Residential Design Amendments <br /> It has come to our attention that the City Council staff report doesn't include any discussion regarding <br /> one of the items that the Council supported at the June 4, 2013, City Council check-in: the completion <br /> of a professional comprehensive resource survey of the older residential structures Downtown to <br /> determine which structures are considered historic resources. This survey is listed as a proposed <br /> implementation program on p.10 of the draft Downtown Specific Plan Amendments. Staff's expectation <br /> is that the comprehensive survey could be completed for approximately $100,000 and that the city <br /> would pursue reimbursement of this cost from future applicants of projects on historic homes. Staff <br /> recommends that the Council adopt a motion authorizing staff to pursue a contract with a qualified <br /> consultant to conduct this survey. <br /> In addition,based on feedback received since the Planning Commission hearing, staff is providing <br /> alternative language for the Council's consideration regarding the demolition definition and new <br /> residential building design. <br /> Demolition Definition (possible change is double underlined; the staff-recommended change described <br /> in the Council staff report is underlined) <br /> Demolition of a residential building for purposes of historic preservation shall be defined as the <br /> removal of the front façade or the most visible façade from the street, including changes to the roof <br /> and roof line, but excluding the replacement of windows and doors. The front or most visible façade <br /> shall be considered the forward most ten feet of the structure. If the portion(s) of a building that <br /> is(are) required to remain as described above are later determined by the Director of Community <br /> Development to be unusable (e.g., due to dry rot, termite damage, etc.), then said portion(s)may be <br /> removed and reconstructed provided the new exterior construction matches the original in material, <br /> composition, design, color, texture, shape, and dimensions. Changes to the front façade as described <br /> above that are determined to be consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for <br /> Rehabilitation shall not be considered a demolition. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.