06-05-1972 MinutesCity of Salina, Kansas
Commissioners' Meeting
June 5, 1972
The Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners met in the Commissioners' Room,
City -County Building, on Monday, June 5, 1972, at four o'clock p.m.
The Mayor asked everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and
a Moment of Silent Prayer.
There were present:
Mayor Jack Weisgerber, Chairman presiding
Commissioner Leon L. Ashton
Commissioner Robert C. Caldwell
Commissioner Norma G. Cooper
Commissioner Mike Losik, Jr.
comprising a quorum of the Board, also:
L. 0. Bengtson, City Attorney
Norris D. Olson, City Manager
D. L. Harrison, City Clerk
Absent:
None
The Mayor asked for approval of the Minutes of the Special Meetings of May 22, 1972,
May 26, 1972, May 30, 1972, and May 31, 1972.
Commissioner Cooper said Line 35, Page 5 of the Minutes of the Meeting of
May 22, 1972 should read as follows: "differences that the County Commission may have had
in regard to the County Employees."
The Minutes of the Special Meeting of May 22, 1972, were approved as corrected.
The Minutes of the Special Meetings of May 26, 1972, May 30, 1972, and May 31,
1972, were approved as mailed.
STAFF AGENDA
THE CITY COMMISSIONERS considered a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION of the
City of Salina, Kansas, approving Community Renewal Program Number Kansas R-53 (CR) and
determining that it conforms to general plan of locality."
Commissioner Losik said he would like to have another review of this prior
to the adoption of it, for two reasons; it is a very large document, and he said they
had only one hour of briefing on it, and the recommendation from the Director of Planning
says it was reviewed by the Planning Commission in February of 1969. He said he would
like to recommend they run another review of it to make sure this is their thinking on it
today, and that he would like to have them look it over again within the next 30 days,
before they proceed at this time.
Mayor Weisgerber asked if copies are available? He said the logical thing to
do is for the Commission to have copies and look it over ahead of the meeting.
The City Manager said we have run into a chicken -egg situation. We felt even
though this approach gives you only an overview of the project, we should do so before
going to the printer. We could have gone to the printers and if there are any amendments
you want to adopt, you can amend it anytime later.
Mayor Weisgerber commented that this is just a guide document. It is not law,
and no ordinance.
The City Manager said it is a general guide, and he said he really didn't know
if there is anything in the report that anyone would take exception to. There are
always alternates, and these always are subject to modification and changes.
The City Planner said the way the contract reads, the document would be in a
permanent binder. The reasoning for this is that the consultant would defend his product
on his data and his conclusions for the City. When we get into amendments, they are put
in supplemental form and it is the City's responsibility to defend the supplement or
amendments.
The City Planner continued that this has gone on so long, C R P does call for
having the consultant meet with the City Commission and the Planning Commission for "X='
number of meetings, and after that, his responsibility in the contract is fulfilled, and
he would go on a per diem cost. HUD cleared out their file and any expenditures incurred
after June 1st would be totally at the City's expense. The last meeting with the consultant i .-..
was free gratis, but it worked out to both our advantages.
i
He continued by saying if we go back through the review process, and get into a
very lengthy review process with the Citizen's Advisory Committee ... did you just want to I
go through this yourselves or did you want it to go back to the various committees also?
Commissioner Losik said his feeling is that if it was reviewed in 1969, certainly
there have been some changes and new thinking in planning. He said he would like the
Planning Commission to look at it again, and he said from his standpoint he would like to
look at it a little bit more. He said he would hate to think that we, by Resolution, would
approve this thing after looking at four books, with only an hour of briefing on it, and
since we are not fighting a deadline here, he said he doesn't think another 30 days would
hurt anything.
The City Planner said they will make arrangements with KWU to borrow their copies
of the document for the City Commissioners to read.
Commissioner Cooper said she felt it would be helpful to the Community Renewal
Program to have the Planning Commission have another look at this, and also the present
Citizens' Advisory Committee.
Commissioner Ashton commented that Tom won't be here in 30 days, and suggested it
I be accepted here today, and then if there are any amendments, it could be done later.
Mayor Weisgerber said this doesn't tie in with the other projects. All that is
involved is the consulting people would like to get their final 10 percent.
The City Planner said HUD has completed the audit of the financial part of the
program, and he said he could see no reason a review of this type wouldn't be in order.
i
A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to
table the matter for 30 days for a review by the Salina City Planning Commission, and
that copies are to be furnished the City Commissioners, and that the Citizens' Advisory j
Committee be advised of it. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried. _
i
AN ORDINANCE was introduced for second reading entitled: "AN ORDINANCE adopting
the 1972 Accumulative Supplement to the Uniform Building Code, amending the 1970 Edition
of the Uniform Building Code Volumes I, IV, V and the standards for Volume I, which regulate
the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, moving, removal, conversion, j
demolition, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area and maintenance of buildings and
structures; provide for the issuance of permits and collection of fees therefor; declare
and establish the fire district and provide for penalties for violation thereof, amending
Section 9-18 of The Salina Code and repealing the said existing section." A motion was
made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Ashton to adopt the ordinance as read
and the following vote was had: Ayes: Ashton, Caldwell, Cooper, Losik, Weisgerber (5).
Nays: (0). Carried. The Mayor approved the ordinance and it is numbered 8226. The
ordinance was introduced for first reading May 31, 1972.
A LETTER was received from the SALINA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION recommending the
approval of Petition Number 3235, which was filed by Presley Builders, Inc., requesting
the annexation of approximately 31 acres of land east of Ohio, between Albert and Cloud;
with zoning of Lots 3 through 7, Block 1; Lots 2 through 5, Block 6; and Blocks 8, 9, 10,
Parkwood Village Addition to be District "C" (Apartment District - Community Unit Plan);
and Lots 1 through 11, alternately, Block 2, Parkwood Village Addition to be District "B"
(Two -Family Dwelling House District - Community Unit Plan) to be established at the time
of annexation
The City Planner spoke with the City Commissioners and showed them a map of the
a rea
A motion was made by Commissioner Caldwell, seconded by Commissioner Ashton to
accept the recommendation of the Salina City Planning Commission and approve the petition,
and to introduce the annexation ordinance for first reading. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0).
Motion carried.
Ordinance Passed: �,, 1, _ �2 riga z Number: �2 2-
A
A LETTER was received from the SALINA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION recommending the _
approval of Petition Number 3237, which was filed by Presley Builders, Inc., requesting the f
rezoning of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 6; and all of Block 7, Parkwood Village }
Addition from District "A" (Second Dwelling House District) to District "EE" (Local Service
District).
A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Losik to accept
the recommendation of the Salina City Planning Commission and approve the petition for rezoning
and introduce an ordinance for first reading. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
Ord i nance Passed: I ,LVAI 12" 0q1 i_ Number: g22 Q
Apw`
I
I
i
A LETTER was received from the SALINA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION recommending the
denial of Petition Number 3242, which was filed by Dale Hoag, requesting the rezoning of
Lots 15, 16, 17, Block 6, Rolling Hills Addition, from District "A" (Second Dwelling
House District) from District "C" (Apartment District).
Commissioner Losik asked what the basis was for the recommendation to deny the
petition.
The City Planner said the petitioner did not own the total portion of land;
there were two lots right on Crawford which were not involved; plus the fact that there
was considerable protest in the area. The protest petitions were of sufficient size to
require a four-fifths vote by the City Commission for approval.
The City Planner added that this area was originally platted for single family
use. This seemed to be their intent and we tend to get into a lot of social unrest in
an area when we begin to break up the continuity and history of the property. There was
history of duplex zoning in that area, but it reverted back. He added the Planning
Commission did deliberate on it quite a while.
A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to
accept the recommendation of the Salina City Planning Commission and deny the petition.
Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A LETTER was received from the SALINA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION recommending the
denial of Petition Number 3245, which was filed by Phil Martin, requesting the rezoning of
approximately 21.75 acres of land south of Crawford, west of Roselawn Memorial Park Cemetery
and east of the Smoky Hill River, from District "C" (Apartment District) to District "D"
(Local Business).
Commissioner Losik commented, "There is quite a bit of controversy in that area
regarding the community unit plan, which of course, is constantly and though we don't
want to deviate from it, our demands have been such recently, that there have been
variances from that. Part of this 21.75 acres is flood plain land. I don't know what
could be utilized as an economical utilization of part of that. Now there is also a
problem in that area that we had to refer another request back to Planning until such
time as the right-of-way was established in this area, so my recommendation would be to
refer this back to Planning and perhaps this whole area could come out of Planning with
their recommendation, after some of these problems have been resolved. I recommend that
we submit this back to City Planning Commission. Maybe it could all be handed down at
one time."
Mayor Weisgerber asked what Mr. Martin really has in mind for this area?
The City Planner said he does already have Christmas trees in this flood plain
area. We have approved the Community Unit Plan that allows him to count part of this
flood plain as recreation space for this future Community Unit Plan apartment type
operation. Evidentally, since then he has had a change of mind and wants to utilize about
half of his total acreage above the flood plain as some commercial type useage. He actually
mentions the sales of Christmas trees, but there is enough land there, that he could have
a fairly sizeable shopping center type thing. There is much more than he needs for the
sale of Christmas trees.
Mayor Weisgerber asked if he does have in mind more than the sale of trees.
The City Planner said he didn't know if that is what he had in mind or not, but
he has plenty of land there to sell trees in commercial zoning, as he requested.
Commissioner Losik said, "Along the same line, on this, the reason I'm saying
this., We have that whole area. I think this would be a time for Planning to look at that
whole area together because if we were to go ahead and do something other than deny the
request east of that, or approve it even, we would be creating a situation here. I think
all of it has the same overall consideration that has to be given to it, and this is my
thinking that Planning should take that whole strip and maybe come up with something on
land use, based on what the people there would like to have."
Commissioner Losik also asked if there were any protests on this?
The City Planner said the Planning Commission did not have any official protests.
Commissioner Losik asked Mr. Darnell if it is his opinion that this is the
logical way to solve that whole area.
The City Planner said that since there have been these isolated individual cases,
they could go back and do a comprehensive study, taking that whole area back for approximately
3 - 4 hundred feet on each side of the road, and work up some recommendations on how it
should fit together, and what the demands are and what the problems are, and that type of
thing. He added that in other areas, it has been very effective, because it ties it all
together in a much neater package.
Mayor Weisgerber asked if this will tie in with the right-of-way.
The City Planner said it would.
Commissioner Losik moved that it be returned to Planning for review for the whole
area, the right-of-way, and so forth.
Mayor Weisgerber asked if it were to be returned with any specific recommendations.
Commissioner Losik said no, for their review and to work it out as a whole
package with the other areas pending. The total area. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Cooper. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A LETTER was received from the SALINA• CITY PLANNING COMMISSION recommending the
approval of a site plan presented by Vance Miller, for a proposed improvement in the
Northeast Industrial Park urban renewal project, Kansas R-29.
Commissioner Losik said if this meets with the Planning Commission criteria, I
move that we accept the Planning Commission recommendation and approve this. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Cooper.
Mayor Weisgerber asked Mr. Werth if this is OK, according to Urban Renewal
requirements.
Mr. Werth said, "Yes, and the sale is contingent on your approval."
Commissioner Ashton asked Mr. Miller if, when they construct this building, they
have made any plans to reface or upgrade the present building?
Mr. Miller replied that they had the Inspection Official make an inspection of
the building, and he gave them a list of their requirements, and he said they have agreed
with Gamble Robinson that these repairs will be made to bring it up to the City Code. He
said there are requirements also, with Urban Renewal, that any building that is to be left
in this area must be brought up to requirements, and this has already been agreed.
Commissioner Ashton asked if the new building will be located east of the present
building.
Mr. Miller replied that it would, and in fact they would be tied together.
Commissioner Ashton again asked if it would be refaced so that it ties in as one
building.
Mr. Miller replied that they are going to close the openings with face brick and
put in new doors. There are not any plans to face it in order to tie it all together,
just the minimum requirements with good face brick, and close the unsightly windows, and
clean up the mess in the back, and do the things required to bring it up to Urban Renewal
requirements.
The Mayor called for a vote on the motion. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A LETTER was received from the SALINA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION recommending the
approval of a site plan presented by Bennett Pontiac, for development of an automotive body
repair shop and the denial of a request for an exception to the Urban Renewal Plan
requirement for paving the parking area, in the Northeast Industrial Park Urban Renewal
project, Kansas R-29.
Mr. Harold Morris said they propose to put a body shop in on North Ohio. They
have been before the Planning Commission twice to get approval of a waiver of the Urban
Renewal requirement for asphalt paving of the parking area. He said they have proposed --
a gravel surface in the drive, because they do not feel there will be sufficient traffic
to justify the added expense of asphalt paving, and would like to have it waived.
Commissioner Ashton asked about the difference of cost.
Mr. Morris said about $3,500 for asphalt surface of the total project versus
crushed rock. He said there is a 322' setback with a concrete drive to there, then crushed
rock will be from there on.
1
1
Mr. Morris explained that there will be 7 employees, and approximately 30
customer cars each week, and they don't feel that is enough traffic to require the added
expense of asphalt paving. He said they would like to put that added money into the
building.
Commissioner Cooper asked if the requirements are the same for all the property
in the Northeast Industrial Park?
Mr. Werth, the Urban Renewal Director, said the requirements are the same,
however there is a stiuplation that the paving requirement could be waived by the Planning
Commission. He said he sent a letter to suggest 32Z' of the approach be paved, and Urban
Renewal would be agreeable to having the rest of the lot in crushed rock or gravel.
Mayor Weisgerber asked about any change in operation later.
Mr. Werth said if there is any use change, it must be with Urban Renewal Agency
approval.
Commissioner Losik asked about the basis of the decision for denial of the
request.
The City Planner said Ohio Street is prime land in the urban renewal area, and
the standards should be strictly adhered to. The Planning Commission did not want to
lessen the standards up and down Ohio Street.
Commissioner Ashton moved to refer this back to Planning with the stipulation
that they get together and see if something can be ironed out between them; because he
said he feels very strongly that the gateway to this area is important, and he said he
thinks it will help revaluate and sell portions of this land to other people, if we have
a good gateway. He added he thinks possibly there is some way we can coordinate our
thinking, something the Planning Commission will approve and yet will be a realistic
expense for the people who are trying to build there. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Losik. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
THE CITY ENGINEER reported on Petition Number 3250, which was filed by Raymond
Houck for traffic control signal light at the intersection of Crawford Street and Hancock
and Montrose.
The City Engineer, in his written report, recommended that signalized traffic
lights not be installed at this intersection, at this time.
Commissioner Ashton said he is very concerned about this particular corner.
He said this is a reasonable survey, complete, and very conclusive, and is right as far
as denying the petition for a traffic signal, and moved to accept the City Engineer's
recommendation and deny Petition Number 3250. Commissioner Cooper seconded the motion.
Commissioner Losik said this thing keeps coming up and the surveys and everything
show that lights, in themselves, are not proper. Is there anything that is feasible to do
in that area, or do we just say that is the way it is and there is nothing we can do with it?
The City Engineer explained that part of the problem is that there is another
stop sign less than a block away, and this also slows the traffic. He explained that, at
the railroad tracks, there is a stop from both directions. It might help if there were
no stop signs; however the westbound traffic is blind as it approaches the tracks.
Commissioner Ashton commented that if people would stop at these stop signs,
it would give enough break for cars to swing in on the same lane of traffic. If the drivers
would come to a dead stop at that particular stop sign, there wouldn't be any problem.
The Mayor called for a vote on the motion. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion
carried.
THE CITY ENGINEER reported on Petition Number 3253, which was filed by T. A.
Lothman, for the installation of a street light in the 1100 block of Highland Circle,
between Beloit and Sunset Drive on the east side of the street.
The City Engineer, in his written report, recommended the street light be
installed between Beloit and Sunset Drive, and it would coincide with a proposed master
plan for the City.
A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Cooper to accept
the City Engineer's recommendation and approve the installation of the street light.
Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
THE CITY ENGINEER reported on Petition Number 3254, which was filed by Gene R. Corn,
for the removal of the "No Parking at Any Time" sign in front of the Dillons Store on Ninth
Street as a customer service to One Hour Martinizing, 1501 South Ninth.
The City Engineer, in his written report, recommended the sign be retained, and
the petition be denied.
Mayor Weisgerber asked if Mr. Corn was aware of the report, and asked if he had
a copy.
The City Engineer presented Mr. Corn a copy of the report.
A motion was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to
accept the City Engineer's recommendation and deny the petition. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0).
Motion carried.
THE CITY ENGINEER reported on his traffic survey and study of the location of
Broadway Boulevard and Cloud Street.
The City Engineer, in his written report, did not recommend the installation
of signalized traffic controlat the Broadway Boulevard, Cloud Street intersection at
this time.
Commissioner Losik said he either didn't get, or they were omitted, the accident
sketches of this report.
Commissioner Losik also said that there is no mention as to whether the width
of Broadway was taken into consideration.
The City Engineer said the accident reports do seem to be missing. He also said
the width of Broadway was taken into account. It takes approximately 20% longer time to
cross.
Commissioner Losik said, "This width, in other words, we have the basic traffic
count and guidelines on traffic flow, so there, from the standpoint of establishing the
criteria for doing something in this particular area. Where we have the difference in the
width, as the City Engineer stated, it takes 20% longer; then perhaps our application of
accepted traffic patterns should be reconsidered to see if this extra width would justify
signalized traffic lights there, at this time."
Commissioner Losik moved that this be tabled for one week to look at the accident
sketches. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cooper. Ayes: Caldwell, Cooper, Losik,
Weisgerber (4). Nays: Ashton (1). Motion carried.
COMMISSIONER COOPER asked about the traffic study of Fourth Street, and asked
if the City Engineer had been able to get with Mr. McConnell to discuss the alternates of
the Fourth Street Study.
The City Engineer replied they had tried to reach each other about five times,
but had missed connections; but they would be getting together.
THE CITY ENGINEER filed Estimate Number 2 for Engineering Project Number 72-542
for the improvement of Miscellaneous Streets, for Smoky Hill, Inc., in the amount of
$34,559.23. A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Losik to
approve the Engineer's estimate. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
THE CITY ENGINEER filed Estimate Number 1 for Engineering Project Number 72-543
for water main improvements, for Stevens Contractors, Inc., in the amount of $7,565.80.
A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to approve
the Engineer's estimate. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
THE CITY ENGINEER filed Estimate Number 1 for Engineering Project 72-544 for
Street improvements in Lakewood Park, for Smoky Hill, Inc., in the amount of $15,653.61.
A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to approve
the Engineer's estimate. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
THE CITY ENGINEER filed Estimate Number 2 for Engineering Project 72-546 for the
Demolition of Unsafe Structures, for Bob Albers Construction, Inc., in the amount of
$2,520.00. A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner Ashton to
approve the Engineer's estimate. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
D
C
1
COMMISSION AGENDA
THE CITY MANAGER AND STAFF reported on Capital Improvements. (Requested by
Commissioner Losik on April 17, 1972)
The City Manager gave each of the Commissioners a copy of the lengthy report.
The City Manager said he wanted to state at the beginning that it is not complete.
He explained that what he had given them was a summary of those capital improvements and
their priority. He added that some are old and a few are new. He said that the report is
not totally completed, but he thought this gives them the first round. He explained that
they would be able to hit it harder this week and come out with a little different approach
to the project request or the worksheet. It would be something that will give us a little
follow up, history, and justification, and something written in more detail that the work-
sheet they have in this first report. He explained that they would be going back and
refining some of the figures and coming up with additional projects. He apologized for not
having it in its final form, but he did say he believed.he gave them what they had asked
for.
The City Planner explained that this is a continuing program. It will actually
be utilized, and updated annually or every 2 years. They asked that the City Commissioners
notify them of any projects they want to add.
Commissioner Losik moved to accept the report for study, with the additional
report to be ready in 2 weeks. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ashton. Ayes: (5)
Nays: (0). Motion carried.
THE MAYOR, with the approval of the City Commissioners, made the following
appointments to various boards and commissions:
Memorial Stadium Baseball Park Committee
Jim Knight, reappointed for a 3 year term to April 3, 1975.
Electrical Code Panel
Phil Aldridge, Attorney, appointed for a 5 year term to April 6, 1977,
to succeed William B. Stokes.
Urban Renewal Aqenc
Harold Eagleton, reappointed for a 4 year term to April 12, 1976.
Salina Airport Authority
Charles Heath, reappointed for a 3 year term to April 26, 1975.
Bill Usher, appointed for a 3 year term to April 26, 1975, to succeed
Edward H. Bell.
Community Relation Commission
J. Q. Rodriques, reappointed for a 3 year term to April 28, 1975
N. C. Grant, appointed for a 3 year term to April 28, 1975, to
succeed George Johnson.
Library Board
Mrs. Cecil Beverly, appointed for a 4 year term to April 30, 1976,
to succeed Mrs. Milton Morrison.
Plumbers and Gas Fitters Examining Board
Robert Parker, Journeyman Plumber, reappointed for a 2 year term to
May 1, 1974.
Public Welfare Board
Very Rev. Frederic Litchman, reappointed for a 5 year term to May 21, 1977.
PUBLIC AGENDA
PETITION NUMBER 3255 was filed by L. F. Eaton for the placement of "No Parking"
signs on both sides of Westport Boulevard to St. Louis Street in Westport Addition to the
City of Salina, Kansas. A motion was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner
Ashton to refer the petition to the City Engineer. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
PETITION NUMBER 3256 was filed by L. F. Eaton for the placement of street lights
on Westport Boulevard to 150 feet north of St. Louis Street in Westport Addition to the
City of Salina, Kansas. A motion was made by Commissioner Losik, seconded by Commissioner
Ashton to refer the petition to the City Engineer. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
A CEREAL MALT BEVERAGE LICENSE Application was filed by Merle A. Hodges, M.D.
d/b/a The Ball Park, 1217 South Santa Fe Avenue. (New). Loren J. Slaughter, Jr., Manager.
The City Clerk reported he had paid the license fee, it had been approved by the
Police Department, and had been approved by the Zoning Officer, subject to Commission
approval. The Health Department has not approved it yet, because there is more work to
be done. The applicant requests approval of the license, subject to the Health Department's
final approval. A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Losik
to approve the license subject to the Health Department's final approval, and instructed
the City Clerk to issue a license at that time. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
Commissioner Cooper asked, since these are accessory use licenses, if they had
been run through the Police Department for varification that they are not exceeding the 50%
allowed for beer.
The City Manager stated that a certified statement was obtained from these
businesses at the beginning of the year as to the percentage of sales for food and beer.
Commissioner Losik asked about the frequency of the check on these businesses.
The City Manager said the statements were received when the license was issued
at the beginning of the year.
Commissioner Losik asked if we have inaugurated a method of follow-up?
The City Manager said we could give them notice that a follow-up can be expected
at the end of six months or some other interval.
The City Attorney said the Commission is justified to receive proof from them
that they are a bona -fide cafe and that it is an accessory use, because of course, if they
are not, you could not have granted a license in the first place.
Commissioner Ashton said he did not believe the Commission should get involved
in this checking. If they were qualified at the beginning of the year, this is adequate
for that period for which the license is issued. The licenses are issued on a yearly basis,
and this is just extra involvement. He continued that we approve a license for them for
the whole year and stipulate that they submit a statement at the time that they stick to
the requirements of the license, then that sticks for the whole year, until the renewal
period, then any changes could be taken under consideration at that time.
Commissioner Cooper commented that there were very few licenses that were marginal,
but the other people must comply with the rules and she thinks there should be a checks
system.
Commissioner Ashton said their business is governed by so many rules and regulations
he cannot see imposing any more on these people.
A motion was made by Commissioner Ashton, seconded by Commissioner Losik that the
regular meeting be adjourned. Ayes: (5). Nays: (0). Motion carried.
1
D. L. Harrison, City Clerk —