Proposal on table to allow additional liquor licenses

URBANA — City council members on Monday night will consider making room for three more businesses under Urbana’s liquor ordinance.

The city caps the number of liquor licenses that it can issue at any one time, and council members will have to raise that maximum if they want to allow a convenience store, a bar and a restaurant to sell alcohol. 
 
They will take their first look at the proposal when they meet as the committee of the whole at 7 p.m. in the Urbana City Building, 400 S. Vine St.
 
Casey’s General Store has applied to sell alcohol at 2100 E. University Ave. The city would have to raise its limit on class C liquor licenses, which allow the sale of package liquor, from 20 to 21.
 
Class C licenses have been a recurring issue for the Urbana City Council. In January 2011, city officials raised the limit from 11 to 27.
 
Five months later, after two liquor stores applied to open on South Philo Road, the city council reduced the number of available licenses from 27 to 15. At the time, residents of southeast Urbana were concerned that the addition of two liquor stores would exacerbate crime issues in their neighborhoods.
 
Prussing proposed the reduction to 15, and said officials could still grant licenses later by raising the maximum. The maximum has since grown to 20, and city council members could tack on one more if they wish to grant another to Casey’s General Store.
 
Tin Roof Tavern would open at the old location of Mug Shotz at 604 N. Cunningham Ave. under its old owner, Scott Cochrane, if council members support granting the bar a class A license. Class A allows bars to sell liquor, and city officials would need to raise the maximum from 16 to 17.
 
Mas Amigos would be allowed to sell alcohol at 1106 W. University Ave. if council members support an increase in the maximum of R-2 licenses from five to six.
 
Council members raised the R-2 maximum from four to five last month after granting a request from Huaraches Moroleon at 805 S. Philo Road.

Comments

News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

David Illinois wrote on February 11, 2013 at 9:02 am

Give Mas Amigos a liquor license before they close!

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 11, 2013 at 2:02 pm

What is the rationale for not giving liquor licenses to restaurants?  Why shouldn't all restaurants be allowed to have a liquor license instead of one having a license, and another not being allowed to have a license?  Why the number restrictions on liquor licenses if the city is seeking revenue in the form of sales tax?  

ROB McCOLLEY wrote on February 11, 2013 at 3:02 pm
Profile Picture

The bigger issue is that Urbana says "what, you want a liquor license?" while Champaign says "please, let me tell you what I can do for you!"