CCMIN121713 - Laserfiche WebLink

owners should be given notice prior to the Council's consideration. He noted the staff report indicates that the cost of this study will be charged to anyone attempting to improve a historic property but said this approach is guaranteed only to discourage historic rehabilitation. He said that the recommendation regarding mass and bulk, which makes the FAR for each lot dependent on the average FAR of properties within 150 feet, is ridiculously complicated and recommended using the Zoning Ordinance policy of 40% max floor area for R-1 zoned lots. He believed the proposed language regarding demolition was an improvement but advised caution when referring to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards which require archival preservation. He suggested that the Council consider language to the effect of "the City encourages investment in rehabilitating historic buildings by allowing adaptive reuse, replication, additions, and reconstruction as needed to keep historic resources active and functional." Teri Pohl stated her full support for the task force's recommendations and noted that similar regulations were very successful in her former southern California community. Debbie Ayres also stated her full support for the task force's recommendations but said she would still like to see some signage directing visitors towards historic downtown Pleasanton. Margene Rivara said she appreciated certainty, such as that afforded by a flat 40% FAR, but that she also had concerns that too many guidelines would stifle the creativity that Pleasanton is so famous for. Louis Rivara stated that overregulation of historic structures can and often does have a counterproductive effect. He questioned the wisdom in granting the task force, comprised of people who largely lack the proper background, the authority to make such important decisions. He agreed with his wife that the proposed regulations may be too focused on making things look alike than on inspiring creativity. It is through individual creative vision that Pleasanton has become what it is today. Art Dunkley said the proposed recommendations represent progress but that there is still room for improvement. He felt the Downtown Specific Plan was a name of little significance and should be renamed the Downtown Historic Area Specific Plan, Historic Area Specific Plan, or Historic Neighborhood Specific Plan. He expressed concern that the definition of demolition could discourage appropriate renovation, restoration and investment and cautioned against relying on the entirety of the Secretary of the Interior's standards, which pertain to historic buildings of all materials, sizes, construction types and occupancy. Mike Carey said he strongly opposed the recommendation regarding bulk and mass and believed that using the Zoning Code's allowance of 40% FAR is an appropriately clear and consistent standard. He appreciated that story poles could be used as a tool but were not automatically required. With regard to rear located garages, he said he supported the term "encourage" but not "require." He noted that many lots downtown are nonconforming and therefore at a hardship if they apply for a remodel or construction permit. These lots need flexibility, not increased restriction. He agreed that the proposed cutoff date of 1942 was inappropriate and said he would like to see something prior to 1929 in order to avoid fossilizing mediocre buildings. He said he believed that staff, the Commission and Council excluded the commercial district from these regulations because they know that overregulation hinders reinvestment and asked that they keep this in mind when making a decision. John Harvey said he hoped that any decision focuses only on what actually relates to historic preservation and ultimately contributes to the clarity and efficiency of existing documents. He supported the recommendation regarding story poles but expressed concern that they can essentially restart the Design Review process when owners have already invested significant time and expense. He felt that detached garages sort of naturally end up in the rear of the home and questioned the need for an explicit statement regarding such. He agreed with many of the points raised regarding windows and said he would like to see enough flexibility to allow for modern windows that keep with the older look. He questioned the need for additional FAR restrictions. He said he was unclear on what the appropriate cutoff date for historic consideration was and that he would like to several examples of homes constructed just before 1942 to get a better understanding of what is proposed. City Council Minutes Page 12 of 20 December 17, 2013