PC 101415 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Beaudin replied that there would be a permit history for windows that were installed with permits and even a window change out would require a building permit. He added that if there was not a building permit on file for the window and it looked like a newer window, the building inspector would definitely ask the question and a conversation would be had about when the window was installed and whether it is consistent. Commissioner Balch commented that there would be no permit if it is the first ten feet. Mr. Beaudin replied that there are two distinct process: a Planning process and a Building and Safety permitting process. He explained that that there would have been no design review process required to change that window, but a building permit would have been required. He then commented on the historic character of the neighborhood in relation to the question from Commissioner Nagler about the value. He noted that there is certainly not a tangible, financial benefit for this kind of regulation, but there is a community character and neighborhood aesthetic for really high quality historic structures in a neighborhood, and people take pride in that. He indicated that there is an intangible value that comes with this, a kind of pride within the neighborhood, a kind of community character and neighborhood preservation of design and policy. Chair Allen stated that the Task Force was formed three years ago because of the recognition that there is a quality of life value that keeps Pleasanton unique. She indicated that she was talking to the manager of the Pleasanton Hotel a few weeks ago, and asked how her business was doing, and the manager replied that it was great and that the surprise to her is that almost every visitor who comes in tells them that they never realized how unique Pleasanton was. She indicated that these are visitors who come to Pleasanton to do work at a business in town, and almost all of them have commented about the value and uniqueness of the City, a big part of which was the historical character in the City's buildings. Commissioner Nagler stated that he completely agreed with Chair Allen. He noted that this is a terrific, important, valuable, Herculean effort which completely speaks to the underlying character of the community and is an important effort that matters and he applauds; and, as one person commented, to stop the incremental degradation over time with the character of the community is incredibly important to look at. He indicated that he supports the inclusion of review for the first ten feet because not covering that would lead to inconsistency. He stated that the trick in all of this seems to be how the City strikes the balance between encouraging the maintenance of these 88 homes which would necessarily periodically require remodeling, reconstruction, shoring up, residing, replacing front doors, etc., on the one hand, and maintain the historical integrity of the building on the other. He made an anecdotal, historical comment that it is hard to live in this community and care about the town enough to get into conversations with people about architecture and construction and preservation and all that, without the conversation at some point turning to how difficult it is to work with the Planning Division when they want to make any changes to their historical structure and how it can easily become a nightmare. He indicated that he is not suggesting that it is true, but it does beg the question: What is the City's attitude towards again, on the one hand, encouraging the maintenance of buildings so that they do not become dilapidated and maintain their historical integrity, but on the other hand, doing it in a way that discourages people from applying for changes to avoid what could be a nightmare and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 14, 2015 Page 15 of 35