CCMIN091801 - Laserfiche WebLink

to be repaired and planned to raise the basement ceiling eighteen inches to bring it up to Code. They would repair the foundation then remodel the rest of the building. The original plan was rejected in May 1998 with a request to make the structure look more like the original building. In July 1998, the plans were approved and construction started. As the interior lath and plaster were removed, extensive dry rot was revealed. When the outside stucco was removed, more dry rot was exposed and the front porch fell off. Gary Smith, former Chief Building Official, indicated the building was no longer safe to occupy. When construction started on the foundation repair, it was found that the entire foundation would have to be replaced to meet the Building Codes. By the time ail the permits were obtained, the rainy season had commenced and no work could be done for about six months. In May 1999, the construction was completed and a final inspection was made and signed off. They moved their business into the building and the City said they needed to change some things and add parking, which started the current procedure. He said he would never rehabilitate a building again. In the last few weeks, he has received communication from downtown property owners who supported what they were doing, but would not speak to the Council for fear of retribution from City staffif they every had a project in the future. Mr. Campbell asked about the staffperception that this was a residence, then an office. Mr. Winter said the building looks like a house. Like many houses on Spring Street, it looks like a house, but has a business in it. It could be used as a house with minimal changes. The original intention was to have Judy Winter's father live in the house. However, due to illness he must now live in an assisted living facility. Because of the extra construction costs and delays, it was determined to use the building for their own business. He did not tell City staff about the change in use, because they did not realize there would be a problem. They built the building under commercial specifications as a remodel. Staff said it was new construction and he said the new foundation was at the City's direction. Every document the City staff signed off on indicates it was a remodel. Ms. Michelotti asked when they decided to occupy the building with their own business. Mr. Winter said May or June 2000. Ms. Michelotti asked whether they were aware of any ramifications of changing to a commercial use. Mr. Winter said since it was a remodel, there were no additional parking requirements in changing from residential to commercial use. All the building specifications were done for either residential or commercial to meet building codes. There are a couple of minor improvements to be made, such as a handicap ramp. It is the City staff's interpretation that this is new construction that leads to the current dispute. Ms. Dennis verified that the house was never used as a residence. Pleasanton City Council 12 09/18/01 Minutes