CC MIN 1975 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

cos Bruce Cass, The Wine Company, 1629 Main Street, suggested that the variance was granted by the Planning Commission within the guide- lines required and will not result in detriment to the area Mr Cass stated that a unique situation with regard to on-street parking has resulted from the creation of the Woodside Road ramp thereby making available on-street parking which can be used by patrons of his business without harm to other businesses in the area and noted that the Hofbrau is across the street and its parking lot will not attract patrons of The Wine Company Mr Cass reported that later staff reports indicated that at maximum use periods, the on-street parking places were not heavily used Mr Cass advised that while he might be able to obtain a few additional parking places by elimi- nating the lawn area at his establishment, that it is part of the concept of his business to provide the lawn area Mr Cass acknowl- edged that The Wine Company was required to plant the lawn and in- stall automatic sprinklers before a business license would be issued Mr. Cass continued, suggesting that not granting the requested variance to The Wine Company could be considered granting special privilege to the Hofbrau and reported that Howard Lester, a resi- dent in the area and the owners of Broadway Cleaners do not object. In response to question as to whether Mr. Cass had attempted to work out a parking arrangement with Broadway Cleaners for use of their parking lot during the evening when the cleaners is closed and The Wine Company anticipates its greatest business, Mr. Cass stated he had considered it, but did not pursue it. William J. Price, 3823 East Lake Way, stated he is a member of the Planning Commission and of the Architectural Committee and a pri- vate citizen and asked whether Harry' s Hofbrau was expected to expand and stated he could not understand the objection to the granting of the variance by Mr Kramer Mr Berlin advised that Mr. Kramer has no plans for expansion — Mr. Price continued, stated that the Architectural Committee had required the lawn at The Wine Company and suggested that the type of operation planned by Mr Cass would be a desirable one Mr Price commented concerning the availability of on-street parking and spoke in favor of the granting of a variance to The Wine Company. In response to question concerning both the legality and the pro- priety of a member of the Planning Commission and Architectural Committee speaking on behalf of an applicant for a variance, City Attorney Schricker advised that under liberal rules of allowing relevant testimony, it is legal for Mr Price to speak as he has done, but it must be understood that he is speaking as an individual or giving only the rationale behind his own vote as a member of the Committee and the Commission Mr Schricker advised that with re- gard to the propriety of making such statements, the appearance of bias might exist Discussion followed concerning the appropriateness of Mr Price's comments, the difference between a public hearing and a quasi- judicial proceeding involving granting of a variance, and whether or not Mr Price should be permitted to attempt to rebut testimony offered by others Mr Price referred to his earlier statement that he is speaking as an individual member of the Architectural Committee and of the Planning Commission and as an individual private citizen -3- Reg.Mtg. 11/24/75 •