| 6/10/2025 | 0 |
LICENSES COMMITTEE
| AMENDED
Minutes note: The licensee was present along with Atty. Maistelman.
Individuals also present:
Atty. Gresham said that MPD is not objecting to this business and that this revocation was brought up by a neighbor.
The current police report was read.
Atty. Maistelman said that there are a number of baseless calls on the police report.
Ald. Coggs asked MPD how many calls were substantiated.
MPD responded that none of the calls were substantiated.
Ms. Englert (revocation party) said that she submitted a notarized complaint and asked if it’s part of the file.
It was confirmed that it was part of the file.
Ms. Englert said that Ald. Coggs held a neighborhood meeting prior the first licensing hearing where the licensee made an agreement which was made part of the record. She added that she is asking the committee to keep Mr. Simms accountable under the terms of his license scope because it is proven that it is not working despite the number of meetings held with him.
Ald. Zamarripa asked Ms. Englert what she thinks about the MPD calls being found unsubstantiated.
Ms. Englert said that it is frustrating.
Ald. Zamarripa asked why she is the only one requesting the revocation.
Ms. Englert said that she decided to go on her own.
Ms. Lopez said that no neighborhood notices are sent out for revocations.
Atty. Gresham sad that the revocation party is responsible of colleting witnesses and evidence.
Atty. Maistelman asked the licensee if he entered into an agreement with neighborhood.
The licensee said that it is correct and the agreement was to close the patio, to turn off the speakers on the back, have security guards on the weekend, to discontinue music at 10 pm, apply for temporary permits for special events and that he has no DJ equipment.
Atty. Maistelman said that they put together a mitigation plan which is in front of the committee and was read by him.
Ms. Lopez verified that the patio is licensed.
The licensee said that he does not use the patio in respect to the neighbors but that he would like to use it until 8pm.
Atty. Gresham said that we are not making amendments here because it is a revocation.
Ms. Lopez found the amendments made on 2024 and read them for the record.
Ald. Burgelis said that the application will be in front of the committee for renewal and then, the committee will do the necessary amendments to keep the peace and to notify the neighbors as well.
Ald. Brower asked if there are photographs and videos to support the revocation party testimony.
Ms. Lopez said that there some videos submitted by the revocation party.
The committee voted not to watch the videos.
Neighbors for the revocation:
Rick Steenwyk – said that he lives 300 feet door to door – that there has been improvement but that there are randomly situations where the neighborhood is disrupted. He added that he hears parts of the crowds even if the bar has closed because patrons hang out with loud music in their cars and take their time to leave.
Individuals against the revocation:
Antoine Hopkins – 6938 N 78th Ct – said that the applicant is a good friend and that he owns a landscaping business and that when asked Jimmy to cut the trees on the back, the applicant said that he did not want to do it because he does not use the patio and did not want to upset the neighbors. He added that he goes there between 9 and 10 pm, that no loud music is played and that the applicant does not use the patio.
Jante Cross - 5722 N 95th St – said that he was the bar manager for a couple of months and that he listened some of the complaints. He explained that they have been operated with YouTube, a TV and small speakers, that the DJ was literally switching the songs, that they barely sell beer, that there are beers in the coolers but are barely sold. As for the trash he said that that they do not sell food neither have kids. He said that the trash do not line up with what they do. He also explained that most of them have day time jobs and they try to leave early as soon as they wrap it up at 11:30 pm.
Ms. Jones - 4764 W Leon Terrace – said that Jenny’s videos are taken from outside and that you cannot hear the noise inside her house. She said that the night with a DJ, the applicant had a permit for that and she thinks that both objectors throw the garbage at the applicant’s doorstep. She added that these neighbors are harassing the licensee and that it is obvious that none of the garbage comes from this business. She also mentioned that the neighbor Rick made a racial slur to Jimmy.
Ms. Englert asked for consideration of the neighborhood.
Atty. Maistelman said that this business has no citations at all, that the calls are baseless and that there is a disconnection with what the revocation party said. He added that it is a common practice for this committee to recommend disciplinary actions but never going from cero to a revocation. He also said that his client is on the leash anyways because it is up for renewal.
Ald. Coggs said that this establishment is located in a commercial corridor with not so many residences around. She also said that meetings were held with 5 or 6 residents and that at the last meeting she tried to mitigate some of the issues heard today. She asked both parts to work together and that if there is something that should be done, the applicant must do it today before the renewal if the revocation is not granted today. She explained that she does not think that enough evidence has been presented for a revocation and that the mitigation plan presented works because she wants the neighbors to sleep well and wants the business owner to succeed.
Ald. Burgelis moved denial of the revocation. There were no objections. (Prevailed 4-0) | Pass | 4:0 |
Action details
|
Meeting details
|
Video
|
| 5/16/2025 | 0 |
LICENSES COMMITTEE
| HELD TO CALL OF THE CHAIR | Pass | 4:0 |
Action details
|
Meeting details
|
Not available
|