Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 135 <br /> resources in one block, no real consideration has been given by the Planning <br /> Commission or the developer to the stated goal of heigbt reductions to ensure <br /> compatible neighbarhoods. <br /> 3) The Development does nothing to "insure architectural compatibility in areas <br /> with a high concentration of historic resources" or to use architectural treatments <br /> that are "complementary to those historic resources in the vicinity". <br /> J. 2.1.2 (page 32) This section of the DPP itemizes the considerations described in <br /> the chart on page 31. More specifically, at pages 38 and 41, the three buildings <br /> that constitute the cluster of'histarical resources on the block in question are <br /> described in some detail (620 Jefferson, 611 Middlefield and 605 Middlefield). <br /> Limiting architectural considerations and other analysis of the DevelopmenY <br /> without regard to all three properties constituted a gross deviation from the spirit <br /> and letter of the DPP. <br /> K. 2.1.4 C (page 43) This section of the DPP specifically requires analysis of <br /> "potential impacts on adjacent historic districts". No such consideration or <br /> evaluation appears in the supporting documentation far the Development. The <br /> only apparent consideration was for 605 Middlefield, which was minimized by <br /> simply stating that it"could be removed or altered" as if this eliminated any <br /> historical concerns about 605 Middlefield, let alone totally ignoring the other <br /> historic buildings on the block. <br /> L. 2.1.4 D (page 43) This paragraph extends the concems stated in sub-paragraph C <br /> about compatibility with historic districts to developments "adjacent to those <br /> districts". Again, no such consideration appears to have been made except to <br /> minimize the importance of 605 Middlefield Road without relation to the other <br /> buildings on the block and without� consideration of the occupants of those <br /> buildings and their concerns about the extreme height variations immediately <br /> adjacent to their property. <br /> M. 2.3 (page 54) Apparently, the promoters of the DPP have recommended that <br /> 5 <br />