PC 010908 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Pearce stated that it makes sense to remove the pavers. With respect to the sprinklers, she expressed disappointment that it is being discussed again when it has already been discussed twice before. She referred to Mr. O'Callaghan's statement about due process and stated that the due process for an application is the appeal to the City Council. With respect to the presentations made by Chief Cody and Mr. Deaver, she indicated that the conditions surrounding this building regarding it being a new construction and its exiting issues and proximity to other buildings make it perfect for fire sprinklers. She added that if the City adopts a blanket condition that all new buildings need to be sprinklered, the Commission would not have to defend every decision it makes to require fire sprinklers. She noted that even if this building did not have any issues, the Commission would still be conditioning it to be sprinklered because that is what the Commission has chosen to do, and it has been commissioned by the City Council to do the same. Commissioner Fox stated that she is interested in removing the condition for the pavers. She noted that it was after the fact that staff realized that the condition was in conflict with the Downtown plan and that the Commission was not made aware of that fact at the time of the hearing. She added that if the Commission were made aware of it, the Commission would not have added that condition. With respect to the fire sprinklers, she indicated that in line with the hearing on the red-tailed hawk, she felt the need to be consistent. She added that she is having a difficult time with this issue since the City Council has not actually made a change to require fire sprinklers in buildings that are less than 8,000 square feet. She stated that because she now fully understands what the Municipal Code is, she was not comfortable with retaining this condition unless there is a compelling need. She indicated that her preference is that the City Council modify the Municipal Code or make fire sprinklers a law; the Commission can then base its interpretation on that. Commissioner O'Connor stated that he had no problem with the removal of the pavers. With respect to the sprinklers, he noted that although the Municipal Code needs to be amended, both the Commission and the City Council have been clear. He indicated that the Municipal Code is a minimum standard and that the Commission has the right, the authority, and the requirement to look after public health, safety, and general welfare. He added that this is what the Commission has been doing and has been consistent about it. He stated his belief that the Commission should continue to require fire sprinklers of all new residential and commercial buildings and that the Code revision should also be require sprinklers on remodels, based of their extent. He indicated that the Commission is trying to improve things in the City and because the workload is such that the Code cannot be updated at this time, the City Council has given the Commission the directive to continue what it is doing in the interim. He indicated that he believed this is the right direction to take and the right way to go. Chair Blank stated that he was sorry to see the pavers go and that he reluctantly agrees to delete the condition. As regards the sprinklers, he indicated that the Commission often impose conditions of health and safety on projects, as directed by the Municipal Code, such as the signing in and out of daycare centers. He noted that $25,000 to $35,000 is not an insignificant amount on a $1 million building; if the owner builds and then decides to put a nightclub in, he would have to come back to the Commission for a conditional use permit which would require him to retrofit his building to install fire sprinklers at a cost of up to $125,000. He brought forth PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 9, 2008 Page 13 of 28