PC 022603 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas, Mr. Iserson noted that the Downtown Speci Fic Ylan did not address the percentages regarding oftlces and what the City would. like to see. He noted that the Plan was not fine-tuned to that point, and that there were statements in the Specific Plan regarding letting the marketing determine the appropriate mix_ Retail on the ground floor was encouraged, primarily on Main Street_ He believed that the market determined an appropriate mix fairly well. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas whether there was any mechanism which would prevent a property owner from allowing a building to deteriorate, Mr. Iserson replied that some property owners are more conscientious about preventative maintenance than others_ He noted that there was language in the Downtown Overlay District part of the Zoning Ordinance which stated that property owners had a responsibility to maintain their property. He added that the City could not do much until it became a property maintenance or public safety issue. Commissioner Maas noted that if there was a way to follow ongoing maintenance of a property, demolition would not be needed in some cases, possibly through historic preservation. Mr_ Iserson noted that the City tried to encourage property owners to maintain their properties, and that the PDA occasionally became involved. He noted that the PDA cited buildings in a positive way, and that owners were recognized for doing a good job. Commissioner Maas believed it was the City's duty to preserve the City's heritage, and that a replacement was not as valuable as the original. Ms. Nerland advised that the limitation to a property maintenance would relate to external appearance and a nuisance for neighboring property owners. She noted that interior deterioration was difficult to detect, and would not fall under property maintenance unless there was a Fire Code violation. Chairperson Arkin inquired about the definition of the 50% rule. Mr_ Iserson replied that it referred to the value of the building as appraised as a new residential structure. The replacement cost referred to the actual cost of materials to replace the structure as it existed; there was no provision made for profit and other soft costs. He noted that this was not related to market value or the cost of the land. Commissioner Sedlak advised that the 50% rule referred to the material cost to rebuild the structure, not including labor. Commissioner Kameny noted that in the appraisal industry, the Marshall-Swig book was used to determine costs of various improvements, with adjustments made for each county in the United States. He noted that appraisal was not an exact science, and that the appraiser's perception was part of the overall determination. A discussion of the components of the 50% rule and replacement costs ensued PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 2003 Page 7