My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2018_1022
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2018
>
CC_Minutes_2018_1022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2018 10:37:16 AM
Creation date
11/30/2018 10:37:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
10/22/2018
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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, October 22, 2018 <br /> Page 15 <br /> Nays: None. <br /> e. Consider A Community Development Department Request to Performa an <br /> Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 1952 Snelling Ave N <br /> Removed from the agenda. <br /> f. Consider a Request by the Community Development Department to Amend <br /> §1001.10 Definitions, Table 1005-1, Table 1005-5, Table 1006-1, and Table <br /> 1019-1 Pertaining to Breweries, Microbreweries, Distilleries, Taprooms, <br /> Tasting Rooms and Brewpubs (PROJ17-amdt35) <br /> City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly highlighted this item as detailed in the RCA <br /> and related attachments dated October 22, 2018. <br /> Councilmember Laliberte believed at the State level the State refers to a tasting <br /> room as a cocktail room in the Statutes. <br /> Mr. Paschke thought a cocktail room might be slightly different then a tasting <br /> room. He believed a cocktail room under State Statute allows one to be able to <br /> mix drinks and have a bar and would act differently than a tasting room which is a <br /> room where someone is tasting the wares that are produced or distilled, in this <br /> case. <br /> Councilmember Laliberte thought if there is a difference and if the City is sup- <br /> porting the small business, Bent Brewstillery, at the State level with Legislative <br /> change, for them to have both a tap room license and a cocktail room license, <br /> should the City not address cocktail room in the City Code as a use. <br /> Mr. Paschke stated he would rather be reactive to whatever might come out of the <br /> Legislature and if that would pass, it would give the City the opportunity to then <br /> add it at that time versus perhaps having that in the City Code and not being <br /> something the City wants to advocate, if the State does not allow it currently. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon explained in the State Statute, a Micro Distillery Cocktail Room li- <br /> cense authorizes the on-sale of distilled liquor produced by the distiller for con- <br /> sumption on the premises of or adjacent to one distillery location owned by the <br /> distiller. He noted the Statute does not mention anything about mixing drinks. <br /> This is a very specific definition under the Statutes. The City may want to make <br /> sure it is covered properly in the Code. <br /> City Attorney Gaughan advised it would not make a practical difference, it is <br /> more for clarification and ease of use of terms to mirror the State Law term of <br /> cocktail room. He thought staff used tasting room, which was in the Wayzata or- <br /> dinance. He did not see tasting room defined under the State Statute either. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.