PC 111319 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Dolan noted that the concern should not relate to the interior state of the house because the City does not regulate it. Chair Allen asked in terms of appraised versus replacement value, how staff had benchmarked other cities and how they handle these instances. Mr. Dolan responded that municipalities often have a fine which would be assessed. To which Ms. Clark added that other municipalities' fines were often quite low. Commissioner Brown inquired if they went the replacement value route, if it would be based on a similar structure being built. Ms. Clark responded that the expectation would be that it would be for the same overall quality of construction; however, there may be some issues over the extent of the quality of materials and whether or not identical replacements are pursued. The goal is to arrive at a reasonable method that determines a sufficiently punitive fine. Commissioner Brown referenced the 20-year restriction and confirmed that would carry over among property owners and would have to be disclosed. Commissioner Ritter inquired how many historic homes or structures currently exist and confirmed there are currently 92 homes. Ms. Clark responded that for a home to be deemed as historic it must not necessarily be on the California or National Registry list, but it would have to meet certain criteria for historic significance. Commissioner Ritter asked if there is an ordinance like this for non-historic homes and whether there are penalties for not adhering to the process. Ms. Clark replied no; improving or demolishing non-historic homes would fall under conducting work without permits. Commissioner O'Connor commented that restrictions on new building replacements covers square footages, floor area ratio (FAR), heights, etc., and he asked for the reason why the City would not ask for the reconstruction to be in the same style and appearance. Mr. Dolan responded that staff was trying to refrain from dictating the redesign but were not opposed to adding language to suggest it should meet one of the five architectural types listed in the studies done in the context document. While the Commission could direct the applicant to meet one of those types, staff sought to refrain from dictating this. Commissioner Balch referred to Exhibit A, Attachment 1 and inquired how the 20-year deed restriction was determined. Ms. Clark responded that it set at a timeframe long enough to be punitive. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 12 November 13, 2019 trusive for the ADU. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 12 November 13, 2019 wall is not fireproof and he believes it cannot be used as a fire escape. He continued to say it creates bulk and mass and is less than 10 feet from his home. He then quoted the Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC): (1) "Fence, walls and hedges greater than six feet but not over eight feet in height may occupy a required site or rear yard" and he stated the screen wall is 20 feet high; (2) "All additions to main structure which exceed 10 feet in height shall be Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 12 November 13, 2019