2021.10.26 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

October 12,2021 Page 6 of 9 Sonsalla explained there is typically a waiting period and the applicants would have to demonstrate that they have changed or addressed the concerns that led to the revocation.Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola stated this was a common provision,but he was uncertain if this provision was in the New Brighton City Code.He commented then on how some businesses in the City simply outgrow their space and have to move into new space in the community to accommodate their business. He noted the business owners may want to consider finding another space for their event center and SUP to better serve their business. Mayor Niedfeldt-Thomas reviewed the options that were available to the Council. Councilmember Axberg asked if Option 2 could be amended to trigger a second public hearing and revocation if another violation were to occur at this property. Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola commented this option would be available to the Council,noting a second public hearing would be required. City Attorney Sonsalla reported the public hearing was held to allow the public and applicant to be heard prior to the Council making a determination. Councilmember Abdulle supported Option 2. Councilmember Allen stated this was a tough situation because the site could not be fully brought into compliance without having a discussion or engagement with the property owner.He feared the property would not get better. Councilmember Dunsworth questioned why Councilmember Allen believed this was the property owner's concern and not the business operators. Councilmember Allen commented some of the functional concerns,such as the back door having an alarm, would require an improvement from the building owner. Councilmember Axberg supported giving the business owners another chance,but noted she did not want to have to sit through another public hearing. City Manager Massopust reported staff could put together a public hearing quickly and anticipated there would not be as much discussion if the business owners failed to meet the City's requirements.He stated if the Council opted to move forward with Option 2 staff would need to know what would be the"trigger"point. Councilmember Abdulle suggested the trigger point be hinged on future noise complaints or items that were in violation of the 10 conditions from the SUP for the business operations. He recommended nothing related to the City Code violations for the site be a trigger because this was a separate issue. Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola commented the liquor violation and noise concerns have been the major concerns for the property to date.Officer Hamdorf reported the liquor sales violation and hours of operation were higher concerns for him.He commented noise complaints can accidentally occur because things happen.He suggested the Council phrase the trigger as two substantiated complaints within two months. Mayor Niedfeldt-Thomas reported most of the noise violations were a concern because the hours of operation had not been followed. Councilmember Dunsworth suggested there be no more than two noise violations in two consecutive months or four in a year. Councilmember Abdulle indicated this seems reasonable,but he didn't want to set up the business for failure. Mayor Niedfeldt-Thomas summarized the comments made by the Council in that the consensus would like to take no action on the SUP but that a trigger should be put in place to call for a second public hearing if the site has an alcohol sales violation,the hours of operation must be followed,has had two substantiated complaints within two months,or more than two noise violations in two consecutive months or four in a year. Motion by Councilmember Axberg,seconded by Mayor Niedfeldt-Thomas to take no action on the SUP but that a trigger be put in place to call for a second public hearing and Revocation of the SUP if the site has an alcohol sales violation,the hours of operation are violated,or if the site has more than two noise violations in two consecutive months or four in a year. A roll call vote was taken. 3 Ayes,1 Nay(Councilmember Dunsworth opposed),1 Abstain(Councilmember Allen)-Motion