06/08/98 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1725, Minutes June 8, 1998 this property many times. Mr. Ollendorff said that it has been slightly better recently, but the City still has to come out and cut weeds and ask them to clean up. It is not just this business, it is also other businesses located here. Responding further to Mr. Munkel, Mr. OIlendorff replied that this property and the rest of the frontage on Ferguson, have required City clean up in the past. Responding further to Mr. Munkel, Mr. Ollendorff said that a conditional use or site plan has not been reviewed on this property for many years. Mr. Wagner reiterated his position that he gave last meeting, when he stated that the Council's traditional practice, in terms of issuing liquor licenses to restaurants is a six month waiting month. This practice has been applied to many applications in the past. This is done because the Council wants to make sure that the businesses can make it as a restaurant and not as a bar. This business starting operating in February, which means that this should not be brought before Council until August. At this time, the applicant can come back and try again. If a vote has to be taken tonight, he will oppose. Mayor Adams reminded Mr. Wagner that when this applicant came before the Council in November, the Council gave the applicant the permission to operate for a three month period versus six months. Although to change this consensus now may be legal, he did not think it was fair. Mr. Wagner made a motion to table. Mr. Schoomer called a Point of Order. Mr. Schoomer said that a motion to table would have to be enacted right away and could not be done for three months. The motion to table died for a lack of a second. Mr. Wagner said that he remembered that the Council told Mr. Montgomery back in November, that his application would be reconsidered, not automatically approved. Mr. Wagner moved to postpone this liquor license approval until August 1998. Mr. Sharpe seconded the motion. Mr. Lieberman said that the focus of this affair is really not Mr. Montgomery or the restaurant, trash, etc. He believes it is because the residents in this neighborhood simply do not want a full liquor license at this establishment, regardless of who is there. He supports this view. He does not believe a full liquor license in this building is appropriate. A restaurant is fine. Mr. Schoomer said that he does not see any factor that would come forward in the next two or three months that would alter this situation that Mr. Lieberman just mentioned. Mr. Schoomer said that he believed that the Council owed the neighbors and the applicant an answer at this point and not to drag it out. Mr. Sharpe withdrew his second. The motion to postpone died for a lack of a second.