PC 040903 - Laserfiche WebLink

not ask for modern Code requirements such as Title XXZV Energy, handicap accommodations, etc. The valuation would be what the building is worth as a residence had it been properly maintained in the safe and livable condition over time, not including land cost. The applicant must get a licensed appraiser to perform that valuation. The valuation would not be a replacement value, which would imply meeting the modern Code requirements- This valuation would be theoretical for a building built to earlier standards and maintained in good condition over time. Staff believed that was an equivalent comparison- In the future, staff will consider using an appraiser selected by the City so that a consistent methodology would be used for the appraisal in all cases. The documentation for the 252 Spring Street should not include the cost of building improvements dine 27~, because depreciation should not be considered. He noted that was an oversight on the part of the appraiser and staff, but it would not have changed staff's recommendation to support the demolition based on the "50% Rule." Commissioner Kameny inquired how depreciation could not be considered; Mr. Iserson replied that they considered the value as i£ it were in good, repaired condition as a baseline. Mr_ Iserson noted that lines 6 and 8 should not have been subtracted from the value, because staff considered the value of the floor, furnace, and foundation as i£ they had been maintained. Commissioner Maas inquired what would happen i£ an owner did not want to maintain their home, and purposely let it fall into a state of disrepair. Mr. Iserson advised that was an issue, and noted that there was a building on Spring Street where that had occurred- Mr_ Iserson advised that if staff became aware of an applicant who purposefully neglected a building in order to bring the value down and demolish it, that is a factor that the Plat~tiing Commission may take into consideration- He added that Mr_ Thomas is able to tell whether the neglect was intentional over time. When staff presents the report to the Comariission, the analysis may include the determination of intentional neglect. The Commission may deny the demolition application because of intentional neglect. Mr. Thomas noted that intentional deferred maintenance was a concern during his discussions with Mr. Iserson. He requested direction from the Commission whether intentionally deferred maintenance items should not be included in the valuation. Tn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas regarding the disposition of such a building, Mr_ Iserson replied that a potential buyer may have to spend the money to repair the building. Commissioner Roberts advised that Pleasanton did not have the teardown problem that other cities did. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 9, 2003 Page 10