CCMIN091801 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. O'Callahan said he had. In this instance, he believed this was a renovation of a single-family residence. He was surprised the Winters went to the extent of upgrading to the commercial codes. He wondered why they didn't apply for a home occupation permit. He felt it would be a travesty to punish these people for what turned out to be a very nice project. Richard Seilheimer, 420 Pine Hill Lane, indicated he owned two properties on Spring Street. One of his houses is in worse condition than the Winters' house and he has tried to have discussions with the Planning Department about possible options. Planning has said the building should be restored. The house has been without a roof for ten years and he felt it was totally destroyed except for the stucco shell on the outside. The same thing is true of the house next door. It was rebuilt on the inside. The owner of that property is having the same kinds of problems working with the Planning Department. He was required to put in an oil recovery system in his driveway and Mr. Seilheimer did not think anyone else in the City has put in one of those. His concern is with the parking. He believed the commercial property on Spring Street today requires a lot of parking. It is not just the Winters, but several others. He owns property at 273-281 Spring, and related the problems with non-tenants using his parking lot. He believed there were plans in the downtown specific plan to take his property and use it for a public parking lot. He did not think the City was aware of how expensive it is to maintain a parking lot and related his own expenses. He believed more should be charged for in-lieu parking fees. The minimum he believed a parking space in downtown Pleasanton was $15,000-$20,000. He also felt the fees should include continuing maintenance of the parking places. He pays $150 a month to keep his parking lot cleaned. Any business in that area should be required to meet the City standards for parking. Tony Lyons, 213 Spring Street, indicated he was opposed to the in-lieu parking agreement and was opposed to 216 Spring Street being used as a business. He believed this was not a remodel but total new construction. He did not believe this property was zoned residential- commercial. He thought it was RM (Residential Multi-family). He did not believe Spring Street was suited to businesses because the street is only thirty feet from curb to curb, which allows two traffic lanes and one parking lane. Since these people have started using 216 Spring Street as a business, it has exacerbated the parking problems on the street and people orlen block his driveway. He felt there was plenty of business space available elsewhere on Main Street and residences on Spring should not be converted to business uses with no parking spaces. Down the street there is a business with apartments in the back and they have adequate parking because it was designed properly. He did not think 216 Spring Street was designed properly. Mr. Campbell asked staff to clarify the zoning. Mr. Swift said the site is zoned Central Commercial, which allows both residential and commercial/office uses as a Zoning Code use. There has been a lot of talk this evening about what the Code allows. There are Zoning Codes, Building Codes, and Fire Codes, which all address different issues. The Zoning Code does allow residential or commercial uses within a building on this street. The Building Code specifies the type of construction that is required to use the structure for a particular commercial/office use. Those rules are different depending on the actual use of the building itself. Pleasanton City Council 14 09/18/01 Minutes