My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 010908
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
PC 010908
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 4:36:15 PM
Creation date
11/26/2008 11:15:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/9/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 010908
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Ms. Decker noted that part of the issue was that when the building was demolished, there were <br />some inherent structural problems with the adj acent building that had to go through engineering. <br />She indicated the issuance of a demolition permit does not necessarily guarantee the immediate <br />construction of the building. She confirmed that the building permit plans had been submitted as <br />of December 31, 2007. <br />Commissioner Fox stated that she had asked staff at the Planning counter about projects that are <br />less than 8000 square feet and could not remember any at that point. She recalled that the former <br />cigar shop building on Neal Street and Railroad Avenue next to Meadowlark Dairy Avenue had <br />applied for an expansion and was denied by the Commission and was subsequently appealed to <br />the Council. She inquired if that building was less than 8,000 square feet and if sprinklers were <br />required. Mr. Otto replied that it was a small building with an application for a small addition to <br />the front and that the building would have been less than 8,000 square feet. He added that he did <br />not know what requirements were placed on that building. <br />Chair Blank recalled that it was an application for a remodel. <br />Commissioner Fox inquired if, in the past, the City has ever added sprinklers to a commercial <br />building that was less than 8,000 square feet. <br />Ms. Decker confirmed that it has been the case. She noted that it has been the practice to add the <br />sprinkler condition for projects that go through the design review process on the Zoning <br />Administrator level as well as for projects that have come before the Planning Commission, <br />particularly smaller commercial structures, including those that are separated from other <br />buildings as opposed to those that stand next to one another in the Downtown area. She <br />indicated that to her knowledge, the Commission has not required sprinklers for additions to <br />commercial buildings or to residential structures with less than a certain square footage, unless <br />the structure is gutted for a complete remodel. <br />Chair Blank recalled that sprinklers were conditioned for a recent building that was to be gutted. <br />He noted that sprinklers have normally been conditioned for all new construction but not on <br />remodels because it could get more invasive. <br />Commissioner Fox inquired if there were new construction of 8,000 square feet or less within the <br />last five or six years that have not been conditioned to add sprinklers. She noted that the <br />Fairlands Investment project on Stanley Boulevard and Valley Avenue was a new corner market <br />which was probably less than 8000 and inquired if it was required to be sprinklered. <br />Chair Blank noted that, from a historical perspective, since he has been on the Planning <br />Commission, no commercial buildings have been approved without a sprinkler system regardless <br />of size. He stated that the Commission went forward to the City Council to create a sprinkler <br />ordinance, and because the Council did not have sufficient time to add it to the Work Plan, it <br />encouraged the Commission to continue its practice of including the installation of a sprinkler <br />system in the conditions of approval. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 9, 2008 Page 7 of 28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.