CCMIN091801 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Campbell asked if it mattered what kind of office use was involved; for example, a business with outside customers as opposed to someone sitt/ng at a computer. Mr. Swift explained that the Municipal Code off-street parking requirements are one space per 300 sq. ft. of office and does not call out any difference in general office uses. There are classifications of medical or dental offices that require more parking spaces. Mr. Campbell believed the basic controversy is the owners want to pay for three parking spaces and staff wants them to pay for five. Mr. Swirl said actually the owners want to pay for two spaces and staff is requiring in lieu fees for five. Ms. Michelotti stated her understanding was that after the remodel process was started, it was discovered that the house was in such bad shape it was deemed better to rebuild it. Mr. Swirl said that was correct. Ms. Michelotti asked about the proportion of commercial and residential uses on Spring Street. Mr. Swift said in the first block between Main and Railroad it is predominantly residential with a few offices. Vice Mayor Michelotti declared the public hearing open. Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, represented Steve and Judy Winter, owners of 216 Spring Street. The Winters are applying for an in-lieu parking agreement and the waiver of three spaces. They propose to add three additional on-site parking spaces. He said the building at 216 Spring Street is only 102 sq. fi. bigger than the original structure. For the City to require six additional parking spaces for an addition of 102 sq. ft. is totally disproportionate. The remodel of 216 Spring Street has made it one of the nicest buildings on Spring and an enhancement of the historic character of that area and the downtown. To treat property owners who rehabilitate buildings downtown with punitive and disproportionate exactions will stop downtown revitalization. The building permit for the remodel was issued, constructed and finaled with full knowledge of City staff that the building was being substantially replaced. He referred to exhibits in the staff report which demonstrated staff should have known the condition of the property when the building permits were issued. It was long after the building was finaled that a decision was made to classify the building as new construction. He believed that the way Council handles this situation will affect downtown in three critical ways. First, denial will stop redevelopment and property improvements downtown. In 1982, downtown was a classic case of zoning blight. If someone wanted to put in a store or restaurant, it would have been necessary to tear down the building next door to provide a parking lot. The result was that nothing was happening. Nationwide, people like Jane Jacobs were noting that conventional zoning, parking and ftre codes were destroying more historic buildings Pleasanton City Council 10 09/18/01 Minutes