My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 101415
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
PC 101415
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:56:21 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 4:47:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/14/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
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 />surrey 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 />He clarified that the staff recommendation has been set up as Option 1 or Option 2 or <br />any variation that the Commission finds appropriate, and the Commission is making a <br />recommendation to the City Council that those criteria should be applied to the 88 that <br />are identified in the survey, and there could be a subsequent conversation. He <br />explained that what staff is suggesting is that if the Commission is interested in that <br />subsequent conversation, the Commission could move the survey and the <br />recommendation on the criteria to the Council with an additional component which <br />would suggest to the Council that the Commission would encourage additional review. <br />He continued that if the Council then wants to entertain that conversation, staff would go <br />to work and come back through this process to build up or further enhance the review <br />that goes for structures in the DTSP area. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 14, 2015 Page 10 of 35 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.