AgdaPkt 2013-11-18 Special - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

implements the vision. On several occasions the Appellant claims that the$�A. - Page 13 "violates" the "vision", "stated goals" or "strategies" of the DTPP (Appeal, Items I.A, - I.F, I.G, H.1-3, I.W, I.Y, III.A-F). The Appellant incorrectly applies vision and goal statements as regulatory standards. The Appellant also states his dissatisfaction with the DTPP and associated EIR and questions several times on how the DTPP is regulating the Downtown area (Appeal, Items I.H, I.M, I.N, I.O, I.T, I.U). He also suggests that he was given "no warning from the materials provided about the DTPP taken as a whole that buildings rising ten stories immediately adjacent to our property would be tolerated" (Appeal, Item F.1 .). He also states that "no contact was attempted with the owners of the parcels to discuss specifically their concerns about any of the concepts embodied in the DTPP and EIR" (Appeal, Item III.A). The DTPP went through an extensive public outreach process and was approved by City Council over 2 years ago. The six years leading up to the City Council's approval of the DTPP would have been the time to raise objections or voice opinion about the DTPP process and/or claim that there was a lack of inclusion. The DTPP was adopted in January of 2011 (with minor updates in September 2012 and July 2013) after a 4-5 year exhaustive community and City effort to develop a comprehensive guide and shared vision for the future growth of Downtown. Staff has confirmed that the City provided public notices for the DTPP to the AppellanYs property address (605 Middlefield) at least ten (10) times starting in May of 2005 through April 2012 for the DTPP amendments. The City also noticed the property twice for the 525 Middlefield Project. Finally, public agendas were available for the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) meeting on July 23, 2013 and for the Historic Advisory Committee meeting on August 14. 2013. 2. The Proiect is in compliance with all applicable standards contained within the DTPP for the Proiect site. The 525 Middlefield project meets all DTPP standards and has undergone additional required City review, including reviews by the HRAC and AAC (as previously discussed) The Appellant does not cite any applicable standard that the Project does not meet. For clarity, below is a discussion of the correct standards that apply to the Project that are subjects of discussion in the Appeal: a. DTPP - Section 2.1 — Historic Resource Preservation Requlations — The Appellant refers incorrectly to the project site as being "adjacent to an historic district, " in an "area with high concentration of historic resources, " "compatible with the area's historic built environmenY' and/or near "clusters of historic resources" (Appeal, Items I.H.1- I.H.3, 1.1.1- 1.1.3, I.J, I.L and I.X) The project site is not in a historic district or "adjacenY' to a historic district nor does it lie along a "historic streeY' (Appeal, Item 1.1.2). Using the Historic Preservation Resources map on page 30, the Project is located within the "Non-Historic Mitiqation Group 6" area, which means that "development on such parcels shall only be subject to historic preservation regulations if the parcel is directly adjacent to a "Historic Resource to be Preserved" as designated on the Historic Resource Preservation Map" (DTPP, page 32, Section A.6). In addition, it is important to note that the Project is not located in a "Graceful Neighborhood Transition" area either (Non-Historic Mitigation Group 1). Referring to the associated chart for Mitigation Group 6, on page 31 of the DTPP, there are "few historic mitigations necessary" except for "mitigation of impacts of development on properties adjacent to historic resources". Page 13