14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Stefanie Ananthan Subject: FW: Proposed Municipal Code Section 18. 140.030 Fines and Re r c ►on SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Provided to the Planning Commission From: lindagarbarinoIIIIIIIII After Distribution of Packet Sent:Wednesday, November 13, 2019 9:06 AM To:Steve Otto<SOtto@cityofpleasantonca.gov> Date Distributed; I ` I3' 11 IA Cc: Brian Dolan<bdolan@icityofpleasantonca.gov>; Ellen Clark<eclark@cityofpleasantonca.gov> Subject: Proposed Municipal Code Section 18. 140.030 Fines and Restrictions... Hi Steve, Upon reading the staff report for tonight's Planning Commission meeting,there are some concerns that perhaps you can respond to. In the "Restrictions on Future Development" section,there is no requirement to replace that portion of the illegally demolished structure in a "same for same" requirement. Justification:the house on Second Street had an approved plan with permits and when completed would have the front porch cover removed (that cover was not original to the house),also, new windows and doors would be added and additional square footage would be added to the rear of the house. But the home would look the same with refurbished paint, windows and front door and a small addition to the rear of the home and ultimately be the same architectural style Typically, a historic home that's illegally demolished may not have an approved plan on file for renovation of that historic home as did the Second Street structure.Thus, a replacement structure should be same for same. Note that in this new policy no reference was made to the city's Historic Context Statement that defines the permitted architectural styles when any home is demolished whether historic resource or vintage. What is lost to the neighborhood is the architectural style of the historic or vintage house that was demolished. The replacement of the original home, "same for same" should be the key addition to this policy.Clearly,section 1. of the proposed policy needs to clarify that the rebuild be the architectural style of that which was demolished. It should use established language of"same for same", that is found in similar policies for other cities. If this is not specified in Pleasanton's policy language, thus allowing any architectural structure to replace the demolished one,the original architectural style of that neighborhood, or any neighborhood where this might happen, is compromised. Thanks for your attention to this concern. Linda Garbarino, President Pleasanton Heritage Association Note: prior to the existing protections of historic homes in Pleasanton, we had the following occur: There existed on Third Street, a small, charming single story craftsman home sold and ultimately demolished, and replaced with a huge two story home of questionable architectural style, and well beyond the original footprint. This oversized "replacement" home clearly does not reflect the character of the neighborhood and since that time serves as a reminder to the city and neighbors why our historic survey and context statement are critical to retaining our historic residential buildings. 1