CCMIN091801 - Laserfiche WebLink

_ a commercial building, then the Planning Commission would have reviewed the application. The Building and Fire Codes are different for a change of use. Ms. Dennis could understand why the Building Department would say if you have to tear down the whole building and rebuild, then it is a different process. Mr. Swift said at that point, it was still a residential use, so there were no other Zoning or Building Code requirements at that point. Ms. Dennis said she could understand the controversy about remodel and conversion issues. For projects under that umbrella, some neighbors feel they escaped the review they would normally have if it were a tear-down. There have been other controversies in the downtown area where people felt they were not allowed to give input because a project was a remodel and not a rebuild. She questioned this project because there was no ability by Council to question the change of use or the impact on the street. Ms. Michelotti believed the project was a remodel before the crumbling foundation was discovered. At that point, as with other residential units in Pleasanton, part ora foundation was kept and then an addition was constructed past that. That was not considered a complete new residential structure. In her opinion, at that point the Winters were told it was unsafe and they needed to have a complete reconstruction. That is not where the Winters wished to go; it was where the circumstances put them. In her mind, this is a remodel, not new construction. Mr. Campbell said that in addition they restored the building to what it once was. He believed it was still a remodel of an old building. If the St. Vincent de Paul building had been tom down and rebuilt, it would be a remodel. But, it was tom down and a hotel is being constructed. That is new construction. Ms. Michelotti felt there were circumstances that forced a remodel into a complete new construction. The crux of the matter is that if they had moved into the house, and then converted to commercial, it would be a residential remodel and there would be no parking requirements because of an older, existing law. She was on the Planning Commission in the eighties when that law took effect. It was drafted to encourage the existing integrity and preservation of the downtown, while encouraging expansion of up to 25% of space. She believed the Winters building is beautiful and preserves the historic character. The next step is to decide about the in- lieu parking fees. Ms. Ayala believed that if you replace the foundation of a building and all the walls, it is new construction. Ms. Michelotti thought that when discussion began on this project the Winters clarified that the area was for residential or commercial and the remodel could have been for either. The difference would have been, that had it not come in under the residential rebuild, that the commercial rebuild may have had to go before the Planning Commission. Pleasanton City Council 19 09/18/01 Minutes