The saga of Tee Tee’s Nachos continues. As you may recall, the business owner is wanting to open a painting/craft studio where people can create art while drinking alcohol. A nacho bar, candy, and soda will also be available. There are several things that need to happen in order for this business to move forward. One of those things was to obtain an alcohol license. That application came before the Safety and Licensing Committee. Initially they voted to approve it, but Alderperson William Siebers (District 1) referred the item back to committee. After he expressed concerns that granting an alcohol license for a location right next to a dense residential area could open the door to various issues, the Safety and Licensing Committee voted to deny the business’ application for a Class A license and hold their application for a Class B license until the next committee meeting.
In addition to getting the alcohol license, the business needs to acquire a special use permit to allow for the sale of alcohol on the premises. That application came before the City Plan Commission and was taken up during their 11/10/2021 meeting.
David Cress, a Principal Planner for the City of Appleton, briefly gave a rundown of the request to the committee. The location of the business will be in a lower-level unit in an existing multi-tenant building. The applicant wanted to establish a paint/craft studio with alcohol sales. The property was currently zoned as C2 – General Commercial property, so a special use permit was required in order for the business to do what it hoped to do.
He pointed out to the committee that the alcohol sales were ancillary to the painting/craft studio, and that it was very clear in the application that the consumption of alcohol would be tied to participation in the arts and crafts offered by the business.
Per Mr. Cress, “Staff has performed the typical review of the zoning ordinance requirement and is recommending approval subject to the conditions that I identified in the staff report.”
Before the commission could take the item up for discussion and a vote there was a public hearing.
Alderperson Siebers spoke first. He explained that this business was in his district and when it first came up in the Safety and Licensing Committee, there were some red flags that went up. He didn’t know if the applicants knew what they were doing or asking for, and he had some concerns that this business was going to be a bar. He was vehemently opposed to any sort of bar being located in that building because there was very little buffer between the building and the surrounding residential neighborhood. He expressed a desire to hear from the business owner as to how much of their business would be alcohol related and how much was going to be arts/crafts. He noted that they had submitted both Class A and Class B alcohol license applications and they had also mentioned outside seating. He wanted to know more about that and whether they were going to have any music. He had possibly been confused by the reference to a nacho bar and that was what had made him concerned that the business might end up being a tavern.
He did not have any problem with a craft studio being located at that business. He did have concerns regarding alcohol being sold at that location, but if it was a minimal part of their business, he was fine with it. If it was a larger part of their business then he would have some concerns.
Karen Harkness, the Director of the Community and Economic Development Department stated that in the discussions her department had with the business owner that the sale of alcohol was ancillary and there was no request for outdoors alcohol sales at this point.
Alderperson Siebers said he thought he saw outdoor alcohol consumption mentioned on the application, but acknowledged he could be wrong.
Director Harkness said that the staff report at the bottom of the first page indicated that no outdoor alcohol sales or service was requested with this application.
Mayor Woodford asked if any other members of the public wished to speak on the matter.
Dean a resident who lived elsewhere in the city but owned property that abutted the property this business would be located in, spoke. He asked if the applicants were present, but they were not.
Dean wanted to know why they wanted to sell liquor. If the alcohol sales were going to be minimal, why didn’t they just let people bring their own alcohol. He did not think it was illegal to bring wine to a studio if the business decided doing that was okay. The fact that they were going to sell alcohol let him to believe that there was going to be more alcohol consumed there than he was comfortable with.
Director Harkness asked if the city attorney could speak as to whether it was legal for a person to bring their own bottle of wine to a business, but Mayor Woodford responded that at this point they were just conducting the public hearing, so they would note the questions and then handle those questions once they moved on to discussing the action item.
Dean said his questions were, if the premise permit was approved, what limits would be placed on the business regarding liquor sales and who was responsible to watch those limits. [I took “watch” to mean “enforce”]
The last person who spoke during the public hearing was Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) she wanted to note, in response to Alderperson Siebers’ concerns about outside alcohol consumption, that two alcohol licenses had been applied for, a Class A license and a Class B license. The Class A license would have allowed people to purchase alcohol at the business and then walk off site with it. [The committee voted to deny that application.] She also said that the application had indeed mentioned a nacho bar [as Alderperson Siebers had been remembering.]
No one else wished to speak so the public hearing was closed. The commission then moved on to discussing and taking action on the item.
Mayor Woodford started things off by asking if there was a commission member who was willing to make a motion to hold this item.
Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) was willing to make that motion. She explained that the applicant had apparently not known that she could be present at the meeting to speak about her application and did not learn about that until after Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) had reached out to her. Alderperson Fenton thought it would be good to hold the application so the applicant could have an opportunity to speak on her behalf.
After the motion was seconded, Mayor Woodford opened things up for discussion on the motion.
Commissioner Adrienne Palm said that there were a couple businesses with similar business models on College Avenue and she was unaware of either of those businesses having any kind of alcohol related problems or disturbances. She wanted to know if there was anything other than this business’s location that differentiated this application from those other businesses.
Mayor Woodford said that was a great question, but the motion they were discussing was the motion to hold until the next meeting.
Commissioner Andrew Dane asked to clarify what the rationale was behind postponing the vote.
Alderperson Fenton explained that they had received an email from Alderperson Van Zeeland who is the chairperson of the Safety and Licensing Committee which had taken up the alcohol license applications. She made some attempts to reach out to the applicant, but was only recently successful. The applicant had been unaware that she could or ought to be at the meeting so Alderperson Fenton was now asking to postpone voting on this item until the applicant could come and speak on her own behalf.
Commissioner Dane asked if the applicant was required to be at the meeting, to which Mayor Woodford responded that she was not.
Alderperson Fenton said that the applicant had expressed a desire to come and speak regarding the premise permit application.
There was a brief discussion in which it was determined that, due to the Thanksgiving holiday, the next City Plan Commission meeting would be on December 8th.
Mayor Woodford spoke in support of the motion to hold. He said questions had been raised at the public hearing and he himself had some additional questions, and he thought those questions needed to be discussed with staff to make sure they were clear on everything. He also wanted to give the applicant the opportunity to be present at the meeting.
There was no further discussion and the commission voted unanimously to hold the item until their next meeting on 12/08/2021.
Before moving on to the other agenda items, Mayor Woodford took the time to explain for the members of the public in attendance that they held the public hearing on this item at that meeting and there would be no further public hearings; however, he would provide an opportunity for public input at the next commission meeting on 12/08 at which further questions could be asked.
[I’m excited to finally meet the elusive Tee Tee. I’m hoping she turns out to be an amateur detective who solve mysteries in between running a craft studio and dishing out nachos, or that she has secret magic powers she uses to bring whimsy to the people of Appleton—one or the other, I’m not too picky.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=895653&GUID=34EB1AEE-FB34-4B90-B4DA-31D9DAB976EF
Be the first to reply