This transcript appears to be from a White Bear Lake City Council meeting. Based on the names mentioned in the dialogue (Mr. Lindahl, Mr. Gilchrist, Ms. Crawford) and the titles used (Mayor, Councilmember), here is the formatted transcript with speaker identifications. *** **[00:00] Mr. Lindahl:** Use of the property and then the code then allows—so that's why it says "may" here—the code then allows up to 30 percent of a business to be accessory retail. And so that's the balance that's before you tonight from the applicant: is a 70% liquor lounge use, 30% accessory retail use. This item was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their last meeting; they held a public hearing that was noticed around that property and there were no other comments except for the applicant who was present at that meeting. Both the Planning Commission and staff recommended approval. Since the meeting, the applicants had some conversation with staff with some questions about some of the conditions of approval. We've gone through in more detailed conversation with the applicants some of the rationale and sections of the code where things are required, and generally, they've agreed to move forward subject to those conditions, including that 70/30 breakdown of principal liquor lounge use to accessory retail use. The number of seats as detailed in code currently right now places a minimum number of 30 and a maximum number of 35, and that would be located within that 70 percent of the liquor lounge area. And then, as that retail sale is accessory to the liquor lounge use, there are some details in the conditions of approval related to the type of product that can be sold at the location. Just to give you a little bit of quick background on the site, the existing building here is shown along 4th Street. County records show it was constructed—the building generally was constructed in 1957. It's approximately 26 feet wide and 77 feet deep, a commercial single-story commercial building. Again, it operates exclusively today as a retail establishment. There was—there is kind of a rear portion of the building that until recently had a hair salon located in it. Again, the conditional use permit for conversion to this liquor store with accessory retail uses is required under the zoning code. The applicant is proposing to have a self-serve tap system with a sale of pizza associated with that, and then again, as we've talked about, the 70/30 breakdown of the use. And then just finally, kind of in this briefing section, it's just to remind the Council tonight we are talking about the land use and zoning sections of the use. A condition of approval associated with this conditional use permit would be that the applicant apply for a liquor license that governs where and how alcohol is consumed on the site. The applicant lists a website link that's detailed in your staff report. That website lists some just general example pictures of what the self-pouring tap system will look like; so the pictures on the screen are from that same website. I'm sure the applicant, who's in the audience, can tell you more about his vision and his connection with the vendors to supply that. Included in your packet is a breakdown of the conceptual floor plan of the applicant's location. In this case, to the right side of your screen is Fourth Street, or the general main entrance off the street, and the back entrance off here again on the left side. Originally, what the applicant had proposed was to have the liquor lounge in the rear section of it, and then once we talked about the 70/30 breakdown and the seats kind of thing, that's when he proposed this, which is generally consistent with that 70/30 breakdown. It's anticipated that there'll be a more detailed floor plan that will be necessary with the liquor license, which will, you know, get closer down to the exact measurements of the site. And this drawing before you here again shows 51 seats, so exceeding the 35, so they would need to come down in seats, and those are conditions detailed in the resolution and staff report before you tonight. From the application, the applicant has only indicated that there would be some changes; that the front of the building would continue to look the same but the rear of the building would have some basically floor-to-ceiling windows installed on the backside of the building. So with that, staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval of the item before you, subject to the conditions listed in your staff report and the accompanying resolution. And with that, I'd take questions. **[04:45] Mayor:** Thank you, Mr. Lindahl. Can you speak a little bit to the "reasonably necessary and incidental to the conduct of the primary use of such building or principal use"? That seems to be the crux of it. I understand what the applicant is—what their end goal is. I'm not sure we're able to do it within our zoning code, but I really don't care what businesses want to do, but it has to operate within that. So I know the store well, and it sounds like within our zoning code that's not really possible based on this "reasonable, necessary, and incidental to the conduct" language. So maybe you can speak to that a little bit further? **[05:25] Mr. Lindahl:** So Mr. Mayor, I just want to make sure I understand your application. You're talking about the breakdown of the 70/30 and how that relates to the accessory? **[05:32] Mayor:** Yeah. My understanding is the 30%—you correct me if I'm wrong—it means if you've got a brewery in the back, and out front you can sell some shirts that have the brewery's name on it. It can't just be a clothing store, right? That's my understanding. **[05:45] Mr. Lindahl:** So, actually, not so. If your question is not so much about the floor percentage breakdown but about the clothing and the product sold? **[05:55] Mayor:** Correct. **[05:56] Mr. Lindahl:** Okay. So, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, yes, that's staff's interpretation. If you look at the definition of what accessory is, when it talks about that it is reasonably necessary and connected to the principal use. The conversation that staff has had around this internally, and again with the applicant, is in staff's view, you take a strict look at the code from that perspective. In staff's view, if the items that would be sold here are required, it's very clear under code to be accessory, that the principal use has to be the liquor lounge use. It's the choice to have accessory retail on top of that, and the code is very specific that that accessory retail cannot exceed 30%. Those standards are in the code. So then if you look at what the definition of accessory use is, and it talks—as the Mayor just talked about—about it being necessary and incidental to the actual principle use, that's where staff has come up with the language about what sort of product could be sold with that. So you would be able to go in and have—and the applicant would be able to sell products related to that business. But the idea is that that makes it accessory. If they sold products beyond specifically branded for that business, then they're really more of a general retailer, and that is counter to the idea of it being accessory to that business. **[07:15] Mayor:** Okay. I'm just trying to wrap my head around what would ever be "reasonably necessary" to selling beer. I mean, t-shirts are not—it never is. So that—I just... what would fall under that bucket? And that's what I'm struggling with here, because I understand what the end goal is of the applicant and I'm wondering if there are other avenues to achieving this. Is it really two separate businesses from a zoning standpoint? I'll leave it at that. Council, any questions for Mr. Lindahl? Councilmember Hughes. **[07:45] Councilmember Hughes:** Yeah, I have dumb questions. So in other land use issues, we can offer a variance. We can't offer any variances in this? **[07:55] Mr. Lindahl:** Mayor, members of the Council, variances under state law—and I'm sure the City Attorney can confirm all this for you—but under case law, variances can only be granted from dimensional standards. So you can vary from a height, you can vary from a setback, you can vary from a number of parking stalls that are required, but you can't vary from a use. Uses are specifically defined in the districts and those you can't vary from. So we couldn't vary the 30/70. The 30/70 is a percentage standard; it is defined in the code as a specific standard. So I guess I might defer to the City Attorney on that one. **[08:40] Mr. Gilchrist (City Attorney):** Mr. Mayor, Council, my initial impression to that is that you could grant the variance to that if that's requested. The "use variance" prohibition is really: Use X is allowed in Districts 1, 2, 3 but not 4; you can't variance it into 4, you know, that sort of thing. So that's where the use prohibition comes into play. But this sort of—I agree it's not a dimensional standard, but it's a standard in the code that's not based on the use necessarily. So I think it's within the realm of what a variance [could cover]. **[09:15] Councilmember Hughes:** And what about the seating? **[09:17] Mr. Lindahl:** Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I would say again the seating is a specific standard listed, and it's a number. I think the Council could, under the same rationale from the City Attorney, choose to vary from that. I would just mention a couple of things. Those two things that we're talking about—the limitation on the amount of accessory retail and the number of seats—are specific standards that were placed into the code. So these aren't numbers that staff just set as a standard here; this is what the community at some point when they enacted the code determined were the appropriate numbers. And with at least the idea about the number of seats, staff's interpretation of the spirit of intent behind the two limitations that are placed on liquor lounges—that they can't exceed 1,500 square feet and they have to have a certain minimum and no more than a maximum number of seats—is that it was the city's intent to create some pretty defined boundaries to that specific type of use because they were carving out an establishment that can sell liquor that isn't a full restaurant use. So that it isn't a restaurant-bar use, which is the typical business model if you're serving alcohol. **[10:35] Mr. Gilchrist (City Attorney):** Mr. Mayor and Council, just one quick appendage or add-on to what I just said about the variance: "can" and "should" are two different questions. I answered the "can" question, not the "should." **[10:50] Ms. Crawford (City Manager):** And I've got one more. Can I just quickly add on to the seating? That also comes into play, as Mr. Lindahl said, with the liquor license—which we are not talking about tonight—but that seating is consistent with other liquor lounges in the community and I do not recommend the Council deviate from that number. **[11:10] Councilmember Hughes:** Gotcha. When we're talking about their logoed clothing... in this particular instance, they—the retailer—has defined himself as beyond the specific name of his retail establishment but also sort of defined himself in some ways... I'm not trying to speak for you too much, but you're kind of the "clothing area" of White Bear Lake. You know, we've got hip t-shirts and wear that sort of represents this city as well. And even though it's not all the Minnesotan, it's kind of city-branded in some ways. Is there a way to sort of say... even though, I guess I'm just saying there's a lot of what he's done is unique to his establishment even though it is unique to this area? While it doesn't have his singular logo on it, I think he could kind of argue he created... you're looking at me funny like I'm not making [sense]... you know, some of the design work is unique to him even though it uses city-owned names. I guess I don't really know how to say it very well. Like, you know, he's got the Hippodrome, he's got a cool shirt with that on there that nobody else is selling that he designed. And even though that doesn't have his logo on it, it's his design. I'm just saying it feels like that could be considered in his retail sale even though it doesn't have his [logo]. And I guess I'm wondering, could it be, or are we pretty specific it's got to have the "Minnesotan" logo on there? **[12:20] Mr. Lindahl:** So Mayor, members of the Council, what we have before us tonight is—and really, I've had this conversation with Corey—is that he's presenting a pretty unique use. We struggled to find anything comparable in looking at it. So the what we've brought to you tonight is staff's interpretation on an admittedly conservative side, trying to give you an analysis based on what the code strictly says. We think it's very clear about the 1,500 square foot rule. We think it's very clear about the maximum 30% for accessory retail. There was some interpretation about the limitation to the products that are sold there, but I think the rationale—the general idea that they should be accessory to the actual principal liquor lounge use, which is what the site becomes under zoning—we also think is pretty clear. The challenge is defining what "accessory" means. I think it's pretty clear to understand that if you could go in there and you could buy a toaster, that's not accessory. If he was selling other kinds of items, that would be more like general retail. The way we tried to think about it was: if you were at the hair salon that was here beforehand, if you walked into the hair salon, you could buy products related to hair—brushes, shampoo, other kind of spa-related items that would be typically associated with the principle hair salon use. You wouldn't go in there and expect to buy a set of tires. The challenge is defining that accessoriness. **[13:50] Ms. Crawford (City Manager):** Mayor, members of the Council, in addition, there's been significant work on this by the staff, City Attorney, and the state level just to discuss this because this is very unique. This is not a typical request that comes through any community in Minnesota or at the state level. So we've had that discussion and a retailer cannot sell liquor, bottom line. That's pretty clear at the state level. So that's another reason for this split—and you cannot co-mingle the two. The state's been very clear with my office on that, so they have to remain a separate accessory use. **[14:20] Mayor:** Thank you. No, that's helpful. And the reason I was belaboring the point with the "reasonable and necessary" is because what we have before us is pretty simple: can you change from retail to a liquor lounge? Yeah, that's within our zoning code, go for it. But we know what the end game is, which is why I'm trying to have the conversation at the forefront, because this will circle back to us through a liquor license and we're going to have to address it. So in the interest of trying to be as efficient as possible with time, we know these are the issues that are going to come up. So that's for the Council's certification and those in the audience: I understand what the end game is, but to a large degree our hands are tied, again, based on state law. Any other questions or comments? Councilmember Edberg. **[15:05] Councilmember Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm just trying to apply the lessons from our previous topic. Would the applicant be eligible to apply for additional seating on the sidewalks, and how does that work with the minimum of 30, maximum 35? **[15:20] Mr. Lindahl:** Councilmember, that's a really good question that we haven't evaluated yet. You do ask good questions. We have not evaluated that. I don't know off the top of my head; we could evaluate that. If you had the right-of-way, then yes, but the number of seats that would have to be evaluated and obviously would have to be compact and contiguous. **[15:40] Councilmember Edberg:** And would it be possible perhaps to have seating in the front on Fourth and in the back off the parking lot? **[15:45] Ms. Crawford (City Manager):** Mayor, members of the Council, the parking lot behind the store is a public parking lot. We have to look at exactly where the right-of-way—a lot of the buildings are just off of right-of-way lines, you know, some are set right on the property line. The—I'll call it the right-of-way or the parking lot that we own—starts immediately following. The width in this area is probably fairly prohibitive of doing any kind of sidewalk seating or seating in the rear of the store towards the parking lot. It's just so narrow, likely it would not fit. **[16:20] Councilmember Edberg:** Okay, just curious. **[16:22] Mr. Lindahl:** Mayor, members of the Council, I would just also offer on the outdoor seating topic: in the conditional use permit standards for liquor lounges, it also places a limit of outdoor seating of no more than 20 seats. That is within the context of it existing prior to our sidewalk ordinance, obviously, because we're just talking about that tonight. So I think it's safe to presume that that is intended for outdoor seating that would be on their property, and then we would have to look further into how the sidewalk cafe would apply to this particular site. **[16:55] Councilmember Jones:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Obviously, the business can evolve into something else under our ordinance with the 70/30 rule. As far as increasing the seats, I'm not interested. Council, we've had enough problems with just liquors; that's where our problems come with enforcement, calls of concern. Go back to looking at that statistic—is just serving liquor. I'm not interested in expanding that; that's just my personal thing. But that's what I would vote—to say no, live within our ordinance. As far as voting it forward overall, as long as you don't ever print Hill-Murray stuff again, you got my vote. Keep on printing... now worrying... no, I'm kidding. Not really. But you gotta print North Dakota stuff, great, love it. But seriously, I just think we got to live within our means on this first one. That's my opinion. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. **[17:45] Councilmember Walsh:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I think the last slide... it seems to me that you've represented this as a negotiation and agreement. I mean, the applicants are here, maybe we could hear from them, maybe we don't need to, but I assume there's agreement with these conditions? Is that—am I reading that right? **[18:00] Mr. Lindahl:** Mayor, members of the Council, yes. The last conversation I had was that the applicant was agreeing to these conditions and wanted to move forward. **[18:10] Councilmember Walsh:** Okay, I'll move approval of the resolution then. **[18:13] Mayor:** With the motion, do I have a second? **[18:15] Councilmember Jones:** Second. **[18:16] Mayor:** Motion and a second. Any further discussion on this? Seeing none, all those in favor say "Aye." **[Group]:** Aye. **[18:22] Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries and the resolution passes. Item 9, Discussion—we have nothing scheduled. Item 10, Communications from the City Manager. Ms. Crawford. **[18:35] Ms. Crawford (City Manager):** We have a survey right now for the "All Abilities 2050 Transportation Plan." This is a long-range plan that will guide transportation projects accessible to people of all ages and abilities. So I do suggest that people do respond to the survey. More information is on the slide there; just click that and then search "All Abilities 2050 Transportation Plan." Next slide: we have some upcoming events. The White Bear Area Chamber of Commerce 2023 Legislative Reception is Thursday, March 7th. I had previously given you a different date, so that is an updated date, from 4:30 to 7 PM. Registration is required; I do ask the Council to consider attending if you're able and to register at that or tell me to register for you. And then we will be a presenter at AV America—their annual conference. We'll be a case study presenter. That is March 1st through 2nd in San Francisco. Ms. Shimmick will be presenting on our behalf regarding the "Bear Tracks" project. So it's pretty neat that they invited us to present there. So, that's all for tonight. **[19:45] Mayor:** Thank you. Council, any questions for Ms. Crawford? Seeing none, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. **[Councilmember]:** So moved. **[Councilmember]:** Second. **[19:55] Mayor:** The motion and a second. All those in favor say "Aye." **[Group]:** Aye. **[19:58] Mayor:** We are adjourned.