The Safety And Licensing Committee met 10/27/2021. In addition to considering the alcohol license applications for Tee Tees Nachos they took up a permanent premise amendment application for River Tyme Bistro.
Apparently, their patio has structural issues and they were asking to expand their outdoor seating into the parking lot. The City Plan Department was recommending denial because the request would eliminate 10 off-street parking spaces which would violate Sections 23-42(c) and 23-172(m) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) who is the chairperson of the committee asked Clerk Kami Lynch Perhaps, Clerk Lynch, if you could clarify a little bit about this application for River Tyme Bistro.
Clerk Lynch explained that the application before the committee was for an amendment to River Tyme’s licensed premises for their alcohol license. They currently hold a reserve Class B beer and liquor license. The premise amendment was a two part request for an outdoor expansion into parking stalls and an indoor expansion of an event space. The memo from the Planning Department indicated that River Tyme would need to get a special use permit to enable the interior expansion; that was standard for many establishments that serve alcohol.
The request for the outdoor area was not something that a special use permit would be granted for. She said that the committee could take care of this item voting for approval with the contingency that all outstanding departments approve the license. Currently, the outstanding departments that have not signed off on the license are the Community and Economic Development Department, the Inspections Department, and the Fire Department.
Alderperson Van Zeeland asked if any of those departments denied or did not sign on to the premise amendment would the premise amendment application come back to the committee.
Clerk Lynch said that it would come back to the committee with a recommendation to deny, or the applicant could choose to withdraw a portion of their application such as the request regarding the outdoor space.
Alderperson Michael Smith (District 10) commented that he would have expected a representative from the restaurant to be at the committee meeting given how significant this was for them. He asked if and how they had been notified.
Clerk Lynch responded, “I believe they’ve been notified as far as—the Clerk’s Office does not communicate on behalf of the departments because we’re not the subject matter experts, but I know that one of the planners has been in contact with the applicants about this and that the Fire Department has. I believe Inspections has spoken to them as well about what they would need to do to be able to get this premise amendment approved.”
Alderperson Smith asked if there was anyone at the committee meeting from those departments that could talk about this item.
Clerk Lynch answered, no, but noted that the Planning Department did provide the memo.
Alderperson Hartzheim said she wanted to offer an amendment that this item be approved contingent upon approval by all departments. Her motion was seconded by Alderperson Smith.
There was no discussion on the amendment and the committee voted 5-0 to approve the amendment.
After the amendment was approved Alderperson Van Zeeland asked City Assistant Attorney Glad if the amendment was to approve upon contingency did that mean they didn’t need to have a second vote.
Attorney Glad, however, disagreed and thought they would need a second vote.
Alderperson Hartzheim said she would be interested to know if the Clerk or the Attorney believed there was anything else the committee should do or if there would be problems with the item the way it was amended.
Alderperson Van Zeeland said that she had a discussion about this before the meeting and her understanding was the Clerk Lynch and Attorney Glad were okay with the amendment this way. She asked if either of them would like to add anything.
Clerk Lynch said that the special use permit that is required for either portion of the premise amendment does still have to be applied for and then run through the Plan Commission as well as the Common Council, so that it another thing that needs to be watched for and another step that needs to be taken.
Alderperson Van Zeeland wanted to know if that meant they should further amend the item or if she was just saying that the item would come back to the Safety and Licensing Committee.
Clerk Lynch responded that the item wouldn’t come back before the Safety and Licensing Committee, but it would come before the Plan Commission and then the Common Council. There was an additional step to be taken in addition to the step they were taking today.
Alderperson Hartzheim asked if, because the recommendation from the Community and Economic Development Department was denial, was that something the Safety and Licensing Committee should be concerned about?
Alderperson Van Zeeland said that she thought the denial was really just to make sure that they were aware that this is a two part process when, typically, that’s not what comes before the Safety and Licensing committee. She didn’t see anything beyond the memo that they would need to be aware of.
Alderperson Hartzheim just wanted to verify that they were proceeding in a direction that was recommended and wise.
Alderperson Van Zeeland believed that was the case, but asked for feedback from anyone who was in disagreement.
Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9) wanted to make a couple comments. He was somewhat surprised that a representative of River Tyme was not there because it sounded like this was important to them and that they were experiencing a pretty significant burden by not being able to operate on the deck and outdoor space. He hoped that something came from the City Plan Commission and he wanted to be notified when that discussion was scheduled to take place so that he could be a part of it as well. He was in favor of trying to accommodate this business. He said it was a relatively new business and they were struggling like a lot of other are. The significant failure of their patio structure was not a known issue when they purchased the property and he would love to see the city work with them to try to come to some consensus on making their current space work or giving them an opportunity to expand their dining area.
Alderperson Van Zeeland said that she thought the city’s Community and Economic Development Department does a really good job of trying to work with businesses and she didn’t see the lack of a River Tyme representative at the meeting that day as being something the committee should be concerned about since the business was in contact with the various departments about requirements they had to meet in order to get the license.
There was no further discussion, and the committee voted 5-0 to approve the item recommending approve of the premise amendment contingent on approval from all involved departments.
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=880090&GUID=2ECE6971-73AD-4958-B6B5-E27CE019A993
Be the first to reply