CC MIN 06-08- to 12-21-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

/ 78- PUBLIC HEARING (continued) a Item No. 2 (continued) wirmor Public hearing reopened at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Hatfield stated that it was their position that they have offered to do anything in their power to resolve the matter on a reasonable basis; that their business does not involve sale of used furniture, and that all merchandise is either new, which does not require a Use Permit, or consists of antiques, which he understood also does not require a Use Permit, because they are not classified as used furniture. He stated that although he had not measured the sign in the window, he believed it was under fifty sq. ft., but they are willing to paint it over if the City will allow a sign on which the lettering can be changed from time to time. He added that the sign on the back of the building is a permanent attachment to the building and does not belong to Alfa TV, and therefore a matter to be taken up with the owner of the building. He stated that it was his understanding from his clients that they are doing nothing that other merchants in the area are not doing as well; that the area used by Alfa TV is not City-owned property but belongs to the building which is leased by his clients. With regard to signs and posters in the windows, Mr. Hatfield indicated there were numerous other offenders up and down Broadway. He asked that a decision be made by Council that: first, they do not need a Use Permit to sell antiques, and second, that someone be appointed to sit down with them and discuss the other issues and tell them what Redwood City wants. Mayor Biagi asked Mr. Hatfield whether he was aware that a Use Permit had been applied for and granted on September 12, 1979, subject to five conditions agreed to by his clients. Mr. Hatfield acknowledged that he Ait was aware of it, but had he been consulted at the time, would have advised them that he believed they were not required to do so. Discussion followed regarding varying definitions of the word antique; woe the fact that the Zoning Ordinance does not distinguish between used furniture and antiques, but does specify that in the CB District, a Use Permit is required for sale of used merchandise. Mr. Hatfield indicated that he had been given the impression that a Use Permit was not required for sale of antiques. In response to question, Mr. Hatfield stated that he had met with Planning Director Schroeter several times and indicated that he did not understand what was required of his clients. Reference was made by Council to the reports and to the Use Permit (U79-33) which clearly state the conditions of the Permit, and it was also noted that Mr. Hatfield had had the opportunity on a number of occasions to discuss the conditions with the person who is in the position of authority in the matter. Discussion continued regarding the fact that similar conditions are imposed on other merchants; that the violations by Alfa TV have existed for the entire two years and that they have made no effort to cooperate with the City; that the five conditions are relatively simple ones. In response to questions by City Attorney Schricker, Mr. Hatfield indicated that he had discussed the sign permit with his clients and advised them they are probably in violation; that he had not specifically advised them to obtain a sign permit, and acknowledged that he had read the Sign Ordinance and that if his clients wish to maintain a sign on the building, that they do need to obtain a sign permit. City Attorney Schricker then asked Planning Director Schroeter whether, ft in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the requirement for a Use Permit for sale of used merchandise, any Reg.Mtg. Immo 10/12/81 Page 3 F