Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident says municipal code forces historic-resource hearings for window replacements; planning commission proposes amendment
Summary
A homeowner said the city's code requires an expensive hearing for visible window replacements on structures 45 years or older; staff said the planning commission has proposed a change to reduce hearings after a future citywide survey.
A Sonoma homeowner told the City Council on May 21 that a municipal-code requirement is creating steep costs and delays for routine window replacements on older houses, and city staff said the planning commission has proposed an amendment to narrow the requirement.
Steve Heard, a Sonoma resident, said he is renovating a 1978 house and ran into the city’s code requirement for exterior modifications on older structures. He told the council the material cost was $860 but “the permit cost is $5,412 plus the 3 month delay.”
Heard said the Planning Commission agrees the rule is “poorly written” and had proposed a change, but the commission planned to delay the code amendment to “get it right,” and the item probably would not be on the commission agenda until July.
Jennifer Gates, the city’s director of community development, explained the current code: “The code specifically states any structure that is 45 years or older, that wants to change the windows regardless of its historic status requires to go to a commission hearing, and a historic resource evaluation.” She said the planning commission’s proposed amendment would require a historic-resource evaluation for buildings 45 years or older only to determine eligibility; if a building is found not eligible as a historic resource it would not require a hearing once a citywide survey is complete.
Gates said there is “not a way around the code as it stated today” for visible changes to structures in the public view, but she urged further communication between the homeowner and staff and noted the commission’s proposed amendment as a forthcoming resolution to some of the concerns.
The council did not take immediate action on Heard’s permit request. Staff advised the homeowner to continue discussions with planning staff and said the commission’s proposed code change could remove the requirement for hearings on buildings deemed not historic following the planned citywide survey.
The council did not vote on a statute or fee change at the meeting. The costs and timeline cited by the homeowner were presented as his description of the current permit process.
