Thank you for your patience with the limited updates over the last week and a half. The work pace at my day job is now returning to manageable levels so regular posting can now resume.
The City Plan Commission met 12/08/2021 and took up the request from Tee Tee’s Nachos for a Special Use Permit #3-21 for a paint/craft studio with alcohol sales and service located at 550 North Morrison Street, Unit D – Rooms 3, 4, 5 and 6.
This item had been on the agenda for the commission’s 11/18/2021 meeting, but, after holding the public hearing, they put the vote on hold until this meeting to give the applicant an opportunity to appear before the commission. Apparently, she had not realized that she was allowed to be present.
City of Appleton Principal Planner Don Harp gave the commission some background on the item. During the previous meeting, commission members and members of the public had had several questions related to the business’s operating plan. In response to that, city staff included some additional background history on pages 3 and 4 of their report.
This additional information was essentially an overview of the interactions various departments had had with the applicant, the guidance staff had provided, and the actions the applicant had taken.
The Inspections Division and Health Department conducted an on-site inspection during which they met with the applicant and went through the building codes and health codes related to food preparation that would need to be met. They discussed kitchen area improvement that would need to happen; if I understood correctly, there is no current kitchen on the site so one will have to be created. They reviewed occupancy limits, bathroom facilities, and entrances/exits. They also discussed the city’s expectations of what would need to occur prior to any building permits or health permits being issued and what information would need to be submitted to city staff for further review so they can assist with the project moving forward.
Outside of that additional background information, everything else in the report remained the same and staff continued to recommend approval of the special use permit subject to the conditions laid out in the staff report.
With that background being given, Mayor Woodford opened things up for a representative of the business to speak. Jynitna explained that the people starting this business had come up with their plan as a family. They envision it as a place to paint and sip and wanted to create a place where the community could come together with family and friends and have fun.
Timasha, the president of the business and main applicant, reiterated what Jynitna said. This is a place for the community to come together because a lot of people probably enjoy painting and sipping, and this joined the two. She indicated there would be music of some sort.
Alderperson William Siebers (District 1) also spoke. He said that the proposed establishment was in his district. He had no problem with the business if it was an art studio that served alcohol, but he did have concerns regarding what percentage of the business was alcohol vs art. He was vehemently opposed to a bar being located in that space because it was so close to a residential neighborhood. He also had concerns with how loud any music might be because the city has had problems in the past with establishments abutting residential neighborhoods and the noise they have caused. He also wanted some clarification regarding what a nacho bar was. If it was a counter where they served nachos, he didn’t have a problem with that, but the term “bar” made him think of a tavern. He reiterated that he would have no problem if this was an art studio that does pottery and serves alcohol, but he would be opposed to something that was a tavern that happened to be an art studio.
No one else wished to speak so Mayor Woodford closed public comment and the commission moved on to discussion of the issue.
Mayor Woodford started things out by saying that he thought it would be helpful to make sure that the commission understood its role and what the scope of the Plan Commission’s review of the application was, given that there had been some questions related to specific operational issues and licensure both of which were the responsibility of the Safety and Licensing Committee. He asked City Attorney Amanda Abshire to give them a quick rundown of what the Plan Commission was doing and what their role in the process was.
Attorney Abshire responded that the commission was looking specifically at land use when making its review. She directed all commissioners to page 4 of the report put together by Principal Planner Harp in which he highlighted what the zoning ordinance requirements and substantial evidence rule was.
She told the commission that when they are reviewing an application for a special use permit, they are supposed to to determine if the applicant’s propose meets municipal code requirements and conditions. They also are looking and whether or not there is substantial evidence to support their decision be that to approve, approve with conditions, or to deny.
She also noted that that “substantial evidence” meant facts and information other than mere personal preference or speculation. It must directly pertain to the requirements and conditions an applicant must meet to obtain a special use permit and be evidence that any reasonable persons would accept in support of a given conclusion.
Mayor Woodford thanked her and then asked Mr. Harp if the recommendation from staff was grounded in that process of review.
Principal Planner Harp said it was. They tied their recommendation back to the purpose of the code. He noted that they had a provision that the applicant must meet all applicable municipal codes whether building code, fire code, or noise ordinance. So, prior to operation, the applicant would need to satisfy the building, health, and fire codes, and, as she operates her business, the noise ordinance will come into play. If she does not adhere to the noise ordinance, then she would not be complying with the provisions of the special use permit and the city could then take steps to revoke that special use permit.
Mayor Woodford asked the commission members for questions or comments.
Commissioner Andrew Dane was curious if there had been any consideration given to the ingress and egress of that parking lot. In the past, the parking lot had been accessible from both Morrison Street and Pacific Street, but the owner eventually blocked one of the entrances with a chain link fence, and Commissioner Dane wanted to know if that had been reviewed as part of the analysis for this permit.
Mayor Woodford said that before he asked staff to respond to that question, he wanted to note again that one of the conditions for the permit is that all zoning, building, fire, engineering, utility, and other municipal codes and all applicable state and federal laws shall be complied with. So, for purposes of the plan commissions review, necessarily the building will have to be compliant with the codes in order to maintain the special use permit. He then asked Principal Planner Harp to respond to the question.
Mr. Harp said he was aware that there is a chain link fence blocking ingress/egress out of the Pacific Street access point. He said that was done by the property owner in response to requests from the neighborhood because children were playing in that section of street.
He said the technical review group had sent that information to the Fire Department and had received no comment from the Fire Department indicating that the fence needed to be removed. Since they didn’t hear back that it needed to be removed, they felt that it could remain in place while still satisfying the ordinance requirements for safety.
Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) noticed that the staff report mentioned the owner had applied for a Class B liquor license but, when she looked at Safety and Licensing, it appeared that they were applying for both a Class A and Class B license. She asked if they could explain the reason for that inconsistency. [Note a class B license allows for onsite alcohol consumption and a Class A license allows for the sale of packaged alcohol to be taken off site.]
Principal Planner Harp answered that their report is based on onsite alcohol sales related to the paint studio which would allow someone to purchase a beverage and consume it onsite. The Class B license ties into that on premise consumption. The Class A license, however, was not mentioned because that relates to retail activity which is already a permitted use of the building’s C-2 zoning and not a part of the special use permit process which is why they did not mention it in their background history.
Commissioner Dane noted that parking always comes up when they have these conversations, so, not the be remis, he wanted to touched on it. He noted that the staff report seemed to give no real consideration to or express concern about parking. Was that just because this use would simply be a continuation of existing mercantile use at that site.
Principal Planner Harp answered that that was correct. There was no building expansion proposed, so the parking calculation remains as it is. If there was an expansion of the building then they would look at what the minimum parking standard was and whether there needed to be additional parking. Since the renovations were internal to the building nothing would trigger a review of that. When calculating the parking space needed for a multi-tenant building, they don’t look at specific uses. They have one calculation no matter what the uses are in the building.
Commissioner Dane also wanted to verify that all of the parking stalls in the lot were dedicated to the building and Mr. Harp indicated that they were.
The commission members did not have any further questions so they voted on the item. It was approved unanimously.
Mayor Woodford explained to those in the audience that the item would now move on to the Common Council for a vote. As noted during the previous discussion, there are also approval processes that are happening in tandem with this special use permit process. The Safety and Licensing Committee will be voting on that and that also will go on to the Council. There are also conditions attached to the special use permit that will have to be abided by in order to maintain the special use permit if it is issued.
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=900263&GUID=F9285B49-13F4-46D3-8932-DEDFBDEE4FD4
Be the first to reply