My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 051315
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
PC 051315
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:47:25 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 4:35:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/13/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
Commissioner Balch inquired if in theory, the restaurant business' permit could be <br />revoked if it did not comply with City requirements. <br />Mr. Otto said yes. He explained that oftentimes, the Code Enforcement Officer has to <br />go out and tell the business owners that they are encroaching a little too far and they <br />have to push back the barrier. <br />Commissioner Balch then referred to the second floor, which is unique as a true dining <br />area over a public area because there are really no people walking below as there is a <br />dining area below as well to most of the overhang, and so there really are no people <br />eating over a public walkway below. <br />Mr. Otto replied that was correct. <br />Commissioner Balch stated that he saw conditions of approval for that and inquired if <br />this is going to be similar to what was just discussed about for the first floor because the <br />permit cannot be revoked. <br />Mr. Otto replied that a permit projection such as a balcony requires a license agreement <br />with the City. <br />Commissioner Balch requested confirmation of his understanding that a first -floor <br />encroachment permit onto the sidewalk could be revoked if certain things are not <br />complied with, but this cannot be done with a permanent structure on the second floor. <br />Mr. Otto confirmed that was correct, that it needs to meet the standards that are <br />established in the Municipal Code. <br />Commissioner O'Connor asked Commissioner Balch if he is talking about the second - <br />floor structure being built or about its use. <br />Commissioner Balch replied that he is talking about the use. He asked if there would be <br />a call -back if the use becomes non - compliant with some requirements. <br />Mr. Otto replied that there is no concern about non - compliance because there is no <br />clearance to worry about. <br />Commissioner Balch asked if the City would have a recourse if, for example, the Foothill <br />High School Senior Prom is on the second floor and the students get rowdy, or if <br />someone drops something from the second floor onto someone walking below. <br />Ms. Harryman stated that there is a standard condition regarding noise, parking, and <br />some other issues, although it is for a Conditional Use Permit but not for Design <br />Review. She noted, however, that one of the requirements is the indemnification <br />provision so that if someone were to get injured because someone drops something off <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 13, 2015 Page 11 of 32 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.