CCMIN101381 - Laserfiche WebLink

Appeal of Robnette Ste~fen o.f ~ deqision of the Board .of Adjustment denying a . variance to allow the establishment of an ice cream shop. at 163 West Neal Street without providing of.f-stre.e..~ parking for .the business. Th9' property is zoned C-~. (Central Commercial) District Mr. Harris presented his report (SR 81:361) dated October 8, 1981, regarding this matter. Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing open on this item. Ms. Robnotre Steffen, 6153 Crater Lake Court, reviewed the application stating there would be heavy pedestrian traffic for the most part to this business, the hours of operation would not be at peak traffic times, and the business would help with preserving the heritage of the downtown area. She indicated that ~his is a small business and should not be caught in the tug of war bet-~een the City and big business. She stated that free enterprise in the downtown area should be encouraged and the charm and historic nature should be preserved. She added that her ice cream parlout would enhance the downtown area. Ms. Ida Rodgets, 4502 Glenn, Fremont, representing Le Parfait, Inc., stated that Pleasanton is a quaint town and that businesses such as this one should be encouraged in the Main Street area, even without adequate parking. She stated the business would open for operation at approximately 11:00 a.m. - not at 8:00 a.m. as reflected in the Planning Commission Minutes; there would not be any browsere; no one would be in the business establishment for a long period of time; and that the litter and debris would be taken care of. She requested the appeal be granted. Mr. Art Dunkley, 844 Division Street, asked the Council to make the findinF, s for the variance as applied for. He stated this historical site is unique and it should be taken into consideration. He added that growth of the downtown should be an overriding consideration for approval. Mr. Dunkley stated that merchants contri- bute to the charm and fragile nature of the downtown area. He stated there are vacancies now and that any trend for new businesses should be encouraged. He stated that for a technicality of two parking spaces this business should not be denied from this area. He asked the City to form a parking district to work with the merchants on this matter. Mr. Warren Annie, owner of several properties on NeaI Street, spoke in opposition to this item. He stated that he is the only one on Neal who provides parking and that he was required to provide parking in each step of his development. He stated Ha 's, that people from Furniture on Main, p and others use his parking lo~ and that every morning he must pick up garbage and litter left behind, and that with an ice cream parlout it would be worse. He stated he had to pay a lot of money' for upkeep of his property including sealers for his parking area and felt that people who do not contribute to the cost of maintenance, insurance and property taxes should not have the right to use the lot. Mr. Annie stated that if the variance is granted it will increase the use of his parking lot, and he urged denial of this application without the proper provision for parking. He added that he felt each merchant should provide their own parking. Councilmember Mohr asked Mr. Annie if he would be willing to allow other mer- chants to use his parking lot by agreement toshare in the costs. Mr. Annie stated he did not want to share his parking lot with anyone else, as he felt it would not be advantageous to him to do so. Ms. Steffen rebutted by stating she felt this historic building should be pre- served and the off-site parking requirement waived. She suggested an amendment be made to the ordinance code if necessary for this allowance. 12. 10/13/81