CCMIN121713 - Laserfiche WebLink

afforded to other historic resources in the plan area are sufficient and recommend eliminating this policy entirely. Mr. Dolan stated that the recommended Specific Plan amendments make it explicitly clear that none of these policies affect commercial properties, including those residences that happen to be located on sites zoned office or commercial. Several comments suggested not only the exclusion of commercial properties from these policies but also that the City should roll back existing policies on commercial properties. The task force did not believe that was consistent with the Council's direction and made no proposals in that regard. Several of the proposed Specific Plan amendments deal with compatibility. When considering construction of a new structure, the plan provides rather generalized language which refers to but does not define compatibility with surrounding architecture. The task force explored a number of compatibility standards and policies that would allow for more predictable outcomes and ultimately favored a suggestion from a member of the public which allows for construction of any of the eclectic historic architectural styles identified throughout the downtown. There was concern expressed that staff would hold property owners strictly to these particular styles. The Council could therefore consider alternative language that says new construction "should utilize one of these styles or be based on one of these styles." The current language of the Specific Plan is also very general with regards to compatibility of bulk and mass. In an effort to again create more predictable outcomes, the task force has proposed language essentially defining the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) as the average FAR in the immediate neighborhood plus 25%. Immediate neighborhood is defined as any lot within a 150 foot radius of the subject parcel. This recommendation has been somewhat controversial because it does conflict with the FAR allowed by zoning, which is 40%, and could result in what has been described as down- zoning. Staff is comfortable with this option, the existing 40%, or review on a case-by-case basis as is the current practice, but notes that the latter two will do nothing to address current issues and conflict over compatibility. Also related to design of a new home in the downtown is garage location. Both the Downtown Specific Plan and Design Guidelines strongly encourage that garages be detached and located in the rear, because a larger garage which takes up the frontage of the home makes it very difficult to construct something similar in style to a historic home. The task force recognized that there is a point where a lot is too narrow, as often found in the downtown, to reasonably locate a detached garage at the rear of the lot. After discussing various lot widths to use as a cutoff for when a detached garage would be required rather than suggested, the task force ultimately selected a lot width of greater than 60 feet. While staff supports the intent of clarity and consistency, it does have concerns that this recommendation could potentially allow for the construction of more homes with a garage dominated front elevation than is appropriate. Staff notes there are many examples of a rear located detached garage working well on 50 foot wide lots in the downtown and recommends the Council consider this as an alternative option. Finally, the task force has recommended several amendments to the Specific Plan based on relevance. At the time of its adoption, the plan spoke to the possibility of pursuing the National Register Historic District. This was a laudable goal at the time but interest seems to be minimal and the research in the Context Statement reveals that the City likely lacks the resources required for eligibility. The task force is therefore recommending this be eliminated, as well as the implementation measure of using the related Federal Historic Preservation Tax Certification Program as incentives for historic preservation. Mr. Dolan briefly reviewed proposed changes to the Downtown Design Guidelines, noting they largely reflect the recommended changes to the Specific Plan policies. One issue raised solely in relation to the guidelines was consideration of the use of metal roofs. The task force has proposed that the guidelines continue to discourage the use of metal roofs but also acknowledge that metal shingles with a dull finish resembling shake or tile could be approved. Another issue of some controversy is whether City Council Minutes Page 8 of 20 December 17, 2013