My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2014_1208
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2014
>
CC_Minutes_2014_1208
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/13/2015 3:06:43 PM
Creation date
1/7/2015 4:14:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
12/8/2014
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,December 8,2014 <br /> Page 14 <br /> Mr. Blume noted that the business's track record should speak for itself, with no <br /> issues during their 2.5 years of operation; with well-behaved patrons. <br /> From a legal or law enforcement perspective for consideration by the City, Coun- <br /> cilmember Etten asked Mr. Blume how he would differentiate his operation from <br /> other liquor licenses in the City who paid a much higher license fee and were able <br /> to operate for longer hours (e.g. bars). Councilmember Etten expressed concern <br /> with the City setting a precedent, even though the establishment made its own <br /> product, and questioned if that would provide enough distinction. <br /> Mr. Blume responded that their establishment was not a bar that would be much <br /> more established, with bars serving less expensive beverages in higher volume, in <br /> addition to the luxury of extra revenue they received from the restaurant side. Mr. <br /> Blume noted the difference in their establishment, serving a minimum number of <br /> beers, no more than ten, and making its own high quality and more expensive <br /> product with care and passion, such as a bakery establishment would do for their <br /> particular product, and serving a much different clientele. Mr. Blume opined that <br /> the distinction was already clearly stated in the limitations placed on such opera- <br /> tions by the State of Minnesota. <br /> Mayor Roe opened the public hearing at approximately 7:23 p.m. <br /> Public Comment <br /> Joey White,430 Glenwood Avenue <br /> Mr. White lent his voice of support for extended hours'of operation for this type <br /> of establishment. <br /> John Heier, 1435 Albany, Richfield, MN (?) <br /> As a partner in another taproom in Minneapolis, just across Hennepin Avenue, <br /> Mr. Heier advised that they could be open until 1:00 a.m. By not extending the <br /> hours in Roseville for this type of operation, Mr. Heier opined that a patron could <br /> stay at the Roseville taproom until they closed, and then move their business out <br /> of Roseville to another suburb. Mr. Heier opined that it would be a good thing for <br /> Roseville to extend hours of operation for this type of establishment. <br /> With no one else appearing to speak for or against, Mayor Roe closed the public <br /> hearing at approximately 7:25 p.m. <br /> 13. Business/Action Items <br /> a. Approve/Deny Amending City Code, Chapter 302 to Allow for Expanded <br /> Hours of Operation for On-Sale Brewer Taproom Establishments <br /> Laliberte moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1475 (Attach- <br /> ment A) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Title 3, Section 302, Liquor Control;" <br /> to allow for expanded hours of operations for on-sale brewer taproom establish- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.