CCMIN091801 - Laserfiche WebLink

than dry rot and fire put together. He described the essential elements of a successful downtown. In the early 1980's, the Pleasanton City Council changed the zoning regulations to encourage businesses to occupy existing buildings and investment in downtown and actively worked with business owners. He related the improvements to downtown since that time and felt many of those improvements would not have occurred with strict adherence to zoning rules as are being applied to 216 Spring Street. Second, denial will stop historic rehabilitation and investment in historic structures. If the city freezes the architecture of every building over fifty years old, as recommended in the downtown specific plan, it will fossilize a lot of old rundown buildings. Clyde Von's building is a tremendous addition to the downtown area, but he had to demolish an historic structure to build it. There needs to be a realistic assessment of the historic value of the buildings involved. In the case of Spring Street, it was the first tract subdivision in Pleasanton. That style would never be approved in Pleasanton today. What gives Spring Street its character is the variations added by the owners. Last, there needs to be more banked public parking downtown. The Winters have offered to pay for several in-lieu spaces. Unlike previous parking agreements, the Winters have offered to pay in advance and to expand the area of benefit to include the entire downtown. If the City wants to encourage further development downtown, it should get ahead of the need and create a bank of in-lieu spaces. The pretext of requiring six additional parking spaces for a 102 sq. fi. addition is that the Winters are converting a residential use into a commercial use. There is nothing in City ordinances setting forth a time alter a remodel within which to convert a residential to a commercial use. To final a building as a remodel and then reclassify it as new construction, when the conversion to commercial takes place, is changing the rules after the game is over. Mr. Winter met with a City staffmember to confirm that the structure could be used for commercial or residential. The architect was instructed to design a building that meets commercial and residential standards. Mr. MacDonald believed the only way the building does not meet commercial standards is the addition of 45-minute fire retardant glass on the east side of the building. In the alternative, the neighbors could negotiate a non-construction easement and 216 Spring would then fully comply with all commercial requirements. Finally, much has been made of the fact that the basement ceiling was raised eighteen inches to comply with current building code standards. The basement was legal when built and has been lived in for more than fifty years. If bringing a building up to current building standards triggers full parking requirements, payment of traffic fees and other exactions, how are you going to fix up their old buildings? Why didn't the City force unreinforced masonry buildings, which were also upgraded to current standards, to provide additional parking, pay traffic fees and other exactions. Fair is fair, and to treat building code compliance in this instance as a new addition will require that all other property owners get the same treatment in the future. The thrust of that proposed policy is bad news for all Pleasanton property owners. The Winters have proposed a compromise to treat 964 sq. fi. as new construction and to provide three additional parking spaces. They would pay traffic fees based on that new square footage. One of those parking spaces would be a handicapped space on site. The other two would be in-lieu spaces with fees to be paid immediately. Steve Winter, owner of 216 Spring Street, related the chronological history of this project. In March 1998, he bought the property knowing it needed a lot of work. He met with a planner to determine the appropriate uses for the property. He know the foundation would have Pleasanton City Council 11 09/18/01 Minutes