CCMIN040400 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Churka said no. There were plans in the Planning Department, but not with the Building Department. Ms. Ayala reiterated that he had put up a sign for something he did not have approval to do. Mr. Churka said when he put the ceiling on the first floor he decided to make it a useable floor for the second story and not just rafters. He put up the sign as a marketing research study to see if there were people who wanted to be up there. Ms. Ayala reminded him he had an elevator that was only for freight. Mr. Churka said there was nothing wrong with that in 1991. Ms. Michelotti said construction did not start until 1994. Mr. Churka said construction was started in 1997. The first plans were submitted in July 1995. He went back to respond to questions on the evolution of the changed use. He said he did not intend to use the second story for anything but office space. He had many tenant offers and was refusing them. There were several uses. He said he did not understand the difference between retail versus office use as long as it was a "B" occupancy which is 50 people or less. He did not think it made a difference. His only concem was whether the elevator could be used. The Fire Code said the elevator had to be large enough to fit a gurney and his elevator was not large enough. He consulted with Gary Smith and the staircase would provide that access. He referred the prospective skin care tenant to the City to see if it would be allowed. They paid fees for a conditional use permit, obtained a business license and told Mr. Churka the City said everything was fine. The same thing happened with the beauty parlor tenant. Mr. Churka said since the Planning Department approved the use, he thought everything was okay. Ms. Michelotti said a conditional use permit requires a hearing before the Planning Commission and asked if that happened. Mr. Churka did not know, but the Planning Department approved it. Ms. Michelotti said the only thing she has seen is approval for office use. Mr. Churka said he is asking for a hardship exemption for the elevator because it was built in 1991 and he believes the 1994 or 1996 Code is being applied now. Ms. Michelotti asked what was built in 19917 Mr. Churka said the elevator pit. He believed the hardship exemption was justified because the elevator was installed for a use and there is a difference between new construction and existing. His argument is there was an existing use for freight and the use changed. Pleasanton City Council 12 04/04/00 Minutes