PC 022305 - Laserfiche WebLink

because its use was strictly as a bar. 7"he Department had noticed a significant increase in the amount of criminal activity at that location, mostly involving drinking, although there was a shooting at that location. The Police Department had held meetings with the owners and management within the last month, and steps have been taken to reduce the problem. He noted that the Union Jack Pub was arestaurant/bar and that the police activity numbers were not comparable to a bar. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox whether the criminal activities would be transferable elsewhere in the City if this use permit were to be revoked, Lt_ Davis noted that when one bar closed, others in the City were often impacted- He noted that problems at the Sunshine Bar were greatly reduced when it implemented an earlier closing time; he anticipated that an earlier closing time would improve conditions at the Union Jack Pub significantly. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox whether the late-night crowd from the Union Jack Pub would move over to the Crown Pub, Lt. Davis replied it would be difficult to forecast such as situation. He noted that the Danville Police had very few problems with the Danville Crown Pub. Chairperson Maas believed the two establishments had two different types of crowds. in response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blar~k whether the correspondence sent to the owners and property managers were sent by regular or certified mail, Ms. Decker confirmed that they were sent by certified mail. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED_ Dan Straface, Union Jack Pub property manager, 23 Birchwood Place, Danville, noted that the Union Jack Pub had closed because he had served the owners with an eviction notice. He had met with Sgt_ Jeff Bretzing, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, at his request, and their alternatives to get rid of the Union Jack Pub were limited because the owner was paying his rent and had a lease that enabled him to operate a bar. He had asked Sgt. Bretzing whether the City could do anything to enforce the use permit on the property. Sgt. Bretzing stated that the complaints against the bar/restaurant were not any greater than other similar uses in the City and that there was not sufficient evidence to revoke, suspend, or modify their use permit The ownership did not disagree with the conditions suggested by staff as proposed modifications to the use permit, provided the conditions were similar to other bar/restaurants located in the Downtown area. Mr. Straface stated that it was the desire of the ownership of the property to remove the current operator and to bring in another operator whom they currently had at hand. The anticipated new operator would make a presentation before the Commission to explain how he planned to operate the site- He advised that he was also the landlord of the Sunshine Saloon and had experienced similar problems at that location during the 1980's. He noted that after working with the tenant to change the operation and business atmosphere, the same operator now runs that business in a trouble-free manner. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 23, 2005 Page 5 of 17