My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
12
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2015
>
110315
>
12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/29/2015 12:58:41 PM
Creation date
10/28/2015 3:27:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
11/3/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
12
Document Relationships
12 ATTACHMENT 5 EXHIBIT B
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2015\110315
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
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
DRAFT <br /> Commissioner Balch noted that the amendment also has demolition, so if someone <br /> theoretically lets his or her home go, it could make an impact in value, and without that <br /> Code amendment, the City could not enforce the owner to maintain it. <br /> Chair Allen inquired if it is only the first ten feet. <br /> Mr. Otto replied that demolition by neglect would apply to the entire structure. <br /> Commissioner Nagler inquired if the other alternative being considered is still only within <br /> the DTSP area and not Citywide. <br /> Mr. Otto said yes. <br /> Commissioner Nagler stated that the point is where that tipping point for post-1942 <br /> homes that require design review is. <br /> Mr. Weinstein noted that there are two options here: (1) This new design review <br /> process encompasses buildings that were built prior to 1942 that do not have <br /> architectural integrity and are not significant historic resources. He explained that, as <br /> Mr. Otto pointed out earlier, if a homeowner who has an older house with no <br /> architectural integrity or that is not a historic resource wants to change the front door or <br /> windows on the first floor, it would go through this process. (2) Buildings that were built <br /> in 1942 or later that again are not historic resources but may be older than 40 or <br /> 50 years or some sort of threshold would have to go through this process as well. He <br /> added that the Planning Commission could ultimately design a different process that <br /> does not look necessarily at architectural features that relate to the historical <br /> significance of a building because that might not be applicable for newer structures or <br /> structures that do not have architectural integrity. <br /> Commissioner Balch stated that what he is hearing is that all houses built before 1942 <br /> with some type of historical significance on the survey that made it into the list, and all <br /> the things in the initial Option 1 or 2 that are being considered —first floor, less than ten <br /> feet— design review is required to change a window because it has been deemed <br /> historical. He added that the offset to that is that the owner would not have to do a <br /> survey because now the City has done it in a larger group of surveys. He requested <br /> confirmation that this alternative is to say all the other homes that were built just before <br /> 1942 is also in that mix with this alternative. <br /> Mr. Beaudin explained that the survey covers 200 and some old resources; the <br /> 88 homes that were identified as historic resources would be the ones that would qualify <br /> for Option 1 or Option 2. He added that the conversation about whether there should be <br /> an additional step for structures that were not part of the 88 homes analyzed and/or <br /> structures that were built after 1942 could also be given some kind of a look because <br /> they are in the DTSP area. He noted that there is a certain character that people have <br /> come to love about the Downtown area, and the question is, if these criteria should be <br /> applied more broadly and should there be a look at exterior changes in the DTSP area. <br /> DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 10/14/2015 Page 8 of 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.