Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alcohol Licensing And Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commissioners discuss enforcement, authority limits after violations at Lavender venue
Summary
City staff told the Planning Commission that Lavender has been operating under conflicting conditional use permits and liquor licenses, that police documented multiple incidents involving alcohol and minors, and that revocation of the CUP would require action by the Planning Commission after staff gives the owner time to pull building permits.
Planning commissioners heard staff and police describe repeated permit and alcohol violations at Lavender and discussed procedures for possible revocation of the restaurant’s conditional use permit.
Staff told the commission that prior information provided about Lavender was accurate to staff’s knowledge but that the core of the problem is “the dueling CUPs that Lavender currently has.” “To be clear, the information that was previously presented to the commission from staff, was accurate as far as staff knew. The issue comes from the dueling CUP's that Lavender currently has,” a staff member said. Staff said Lavender was originally approved for an alcohol license that allows beer and wine only (type 42) and no children on the premises, then sought a restaurant-type license that would allow distilled spirits and children on-site (type 47) but that the restaurant has not yet installed the required operating kitchen for that different license.
Police told the commission they documented several events in the past year where hard alcohol or unlicensed bartenders were present and where minors were also present. “There have been private events, where people have brought in alcohol and have had, independent bartenders, serving that alcohol,” the Westminster Police Department detective said, listing incidents in September and May that were referred to the state Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) agency.
Commissioners pressed staff and police about enforcement authority. A police detective described the department’s practice: “No. Typically, we wouldn't arrest for something like that. No. We just we document it. We basically, anytime our officers go into a ABC location, we'll document that we went there,” and officers forward violations to ABC. City staff said they have no direct authority to revoke liquor licenses and explained that ABC would need to issue any licensing citation; the staff member reiterated that the city had delivered operational notices to the owner and told the commission that the applicant had hired a contractor and planned to pull building permits within weeks.
Commissioners explored local authority to recall or revoke a conditional use permit. The city attorney advised that “the revocation of a CUP typically would start with the planning commission. The planning commission has typically has the authority to revoke a CUP, then that decision is typically appealable to the city council.” Several commissioners sought a timetable and an enforceable outcome: staff said they had given the owner one month to pull permits and would then work through code enforcement to monitor construction of the kitchen. “We gave them a month to pull permits, and then we would reset the time frame for when we expect the construction to start because that's done through code enforcement,” the staff member said.
Noting ongoing concerns, Commissioner Casey asked that the commission place revocation on a future agenda if the owner fails to comply. “I would like to have a revocation brought into a public hearing or an item on an agenda that we could vote on to revoke any any and all conditional use permits issued to Lavender,” Commissioner Casey said. Commissioners also raised concerns that a separate sports-club operation had been presented under the Lavender name without clear delineation of ownership; several commissioners asked the city attorney to review whether ownership information should be included in future planning filings.
The commission did not vote to revoke any CUP at the meeting. Staff described the current outcome as operational notice and a short compliance window; commissioners directed staff and the city attorney to return with procedures or recommendations if the owner does not meet the permit timeline.
The record shows two documented incidents in the past six months tied to alcohol or minors that staff forwarded to ABC; staff said there were no on-site citations issued by the city but that cases had been documented and sent to ABC for investigation. Staff also said the applicant had withdrawn the type 47 application, which staff said should render that CUP null and void unless resubmitted.
The matter remains open. Staff said they will report back to the commission if the owner does not pull permits within the month and recommended next steps if violations persist.
