My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN110315
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
CCMIN110315
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2015 3:30:12 PM
Creation date
11/19/2015 3:30:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/3/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN110315
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
One item that needs to be determined by the City Council is what changes will trigger the design review <br /> requirement. Staff has provided two options for consideration: 1) any changes made to the exterior of <br /> the historic home is subject to the administrative design review process; or 2) changes or items that are <br /> already addressed in the DSP or design guidelines and are also key elements in historic resources will <br /> be subject to a design review process, and he read the various items it covers and said this is the <br /> option staff is recommending, as well as what the Planning Commission recommended. <br /> Regarding how the process would change, if someone wanted to replace windows on an historic single <br /> family home, the proposed process would require administrative design review which entails an <br /> applicant submitting plans, a $250 application fee to the City, mailed notices, and staff review of plans <br /> for consistency with the DSP policies and design guidelines. If no neighbor objection is received within <br /> 7 days and staff determines the plans comply with the policies and guidelines, approval is granted. <br /> There is a 15-day appeal period and thereafter, the applicant can apply for their building permit. <br /> The code amendment only applies to historic homes. Some members of the public, including former <br /> task force members, have requested that the design review authority be expanded to also apply to non- <br /> historic homes built before 1942. They believe those homes need to be protected as well for the <br /> neighborhood to be maintained. The Planning Commission discussed this and felt there was merit in <br /> further exploring this topic and recommended the Council discuss whether to pursue a separate code <br /> amendment for the non-historic homes. The Commission did not specify using before 1942 and were <br /> open to looking at all homes in the Downtown. <br /> Some items for the Council to consider upon deliberation is that it would cost time and cost to owners <br /> wishing to make minor changes to non-historic homes. The City would need to develop some criteria to <br /> evaluate the appropriateness of changes to non-historic homes, and the review process could be <br /> discussed for a potential streamlined process for review. <br /> Staff's recommendation is that the Council find that the proposed amendment to the code is statutorily <br /> exempt from CEQA; adopt a resolution accepting the historic resources survey; introduce the draft <br /> ordinance approving the amendment to the Municipal Code as shown in Attachment 1 which is Option <br /> 2; and to provide direction to staff whether to pursue a separate Municipal Code Amendment to expand <br /> design review authority to include the exterior single family homes in residential zoning districts in the <br /> DSP area that were not determined to be historic resources. <br /> Vice-Mayor Brown said the survey focused on the DSP area and she understands there were homes <br /> outside of that DSP area that would qualify. She asked how many homes that would be. Mr. Otto said <br /> he did not know but stated there are homes older than 1942 outside of the DSP area. <br /> Vice-Mayor Brown referred to Option 2 and some of the items that could be changed but would be <br /> subject to review. One was a foundation and materials of the foundation. She walked by a downtown <br /> home which has a brick foundation. She asked how someone could make their house earthquake safe, <br /> given in some cases this is the only way they can qualify for a home loan while still meeting the <br /> requirement. <br /> Mr. Otto said there are ways to utilize real or faux brick that would be applied to the exterior of the <br /> home; however, staff would first try to explore options to save the brick if possible. <br /> Councilmember Narum asked how the new regulations would be communicated to homeowners and <br /> real estate representatives if the City adopted the survey and the ordinance. Mr. Otto said one <br /> component that has yet to be finished will be a handout on historic preservation, specifically regarding <br /> the process when people want to make changes to their home. They will also work closely with the <br /> PHA, real estate representatives and conduct a targeted outreach to the 88 individual homeowners to <br /> understand the process. It also becomes a disclosure item if homeowners happen to sell their historic <br /> homes. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 9 of 16 November 3,2015 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.