PC 111319 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Balch referenced language within the agenda report in regard to the redesign not being like-for-like and was legal non-conforming, a new or replacement development shall not be allowed to continue in such non-compliance unless otherwise approved by the City. He said by eliminating the like-for-like, the City may not get that house back because it may be non-conforming. Mr. Dolan stated if the non-conforming nature is determined to be appropriate, provisions have been made in the ordinance to allow it. Ms. Clark responded that the City could approve continuance of the non-conforming condition if there were compelling reasons, through a variance and design review process. Commissioner Balch said if someone demolished a historic home and it is discovered, to rebuild anything would require design review. He asked if the City could allow the non- conforming to continue or whether the City could choose to not allow it and thus be addressed at that time. Mr. Dolan commented that a variance can be applied for in the downtown and qualifying factors would point to many other homes that have taken the same advantage. Ms. Clark added that there is discretion for the Director of Community Development to reduce the amount of the fine. While there is no minimum amount, reduction to, say, $1 is unlikely and any reduction would involve substantial staff and legal discussion. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED President of the Pleasanton Heritage Association Linda Garbarino said she believes the ordinance needs to act as a deterrent from illegally demolishing a historic structure, trees, or a house. She referred to the historic context statement which provides styles found in the City and suggested that the more specific the ordinance language the easier it will be for subsequent staff and Commissioners to be able to understand and draw conclusions about what a replacement house would look like. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Balch referenced appraised value versus replacement costs and the historic house which was recently demolished on Second Street where the appraised value fell below the rebuild value or where applicants are looking for larger footprints. He voiced concern in using that method in determining fees and would support a replacement value approach over appraised value. He also inquired as to the circumstances of the building demolished on Second Street, to better understand it. Commissioner O'Connor commented that other municipalities polled have an "either/or", and when looking at valuations the City might possibly propose "the higher of' as being the bigger deterrent. He also referenced the 93 historic houses to the present-day 92 and inquired where the discrepancy came into effect with the house on Second Street. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 12 November 13, 2019 er 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