Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8A MGM Liquor License Application ~f~PRl~ / o~C?_, ~~ \ 1~'7l'r\, ~ \ 4646 Dakota Sheet SE \~ ;:\~.<..'"'"':) ~~~or Lak~,--~N 55~Z~}7>~~ ,> u~~~.~,_~_<~~~,~~>~_,__ \'~// '~~:~,/ CITY COUNCIL A ENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: PUBLIC HEARING TO CON DER THE APPROVAL OF THE ISSUANCE OF AN OFF-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE FOR MGM WINE AND SPIRITS. Introduction The purpose of this agenda item is to conduct a public hearing to solicit input regarding whether an off-sale intoxicating liquor license for MGM Wine and spirits should be granted. History MGM Wine and Spirits is applying for an off-sale intoxicating liquor license for a store to be located at 14173 Commerce Avenue NE. This license would be valid from October 1, 2008 until June 30, 2009 when it would be up for renewal along with all current liquor licenses in the City. The MGM Wine and Spirits store would occupy the building which presently houses the Asian Market among other tenants. Prior Lake City Code Section 301.503 provides that with respect to a liquor license request, the City Council"... shall hear testimony from any person who requests to be heard for or against the granting of the license. After the investigation and hearing the Council shall, in its discretion, grant or deny the issuance of the license." The purpose of tonight's public hearing is to consider the issuance of an off-sale intoxicating liquor license for MGM Wine and Spirits. The Council should hear the staff report, open the public hearing to receive testimony, close the public hearing and then take action on this request, or refer the matter to the staff, City Attorney or to a work session as deemed appropriate. MGM Wine and Spirits has paid the license fee and provided the City with all required documents and has provided proof of liquor liability insurance. All County taxes are current for 14173 Commerce Avenue NE. The Prior Lake Police Department has completed its investigation and has found no reason to deny this license request on the basis of their background checks. A copy of the Police Department report regarding this license request is attached for Council consideration. Current Circumstances Minnesota Statutes Chapter 340A provides minimum statutory requirements for the issuance of off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses. Cities are authorized to provide for additional requirements in their city codes as deemed appropriate for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Prior Lake City Code Section 301.600 sets forth 11 criteria for denial of the issuance, transfer or renewal of a license as follows: www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447J9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 301.600: DENIALS: The following shall be grounds for denying the issuance, transfer, or renewal of a license under this Section. The following list is not exhaustive or exclusive: (1) The applicant is under the age of twenty-one (21) years. (2) The applicant has been convicted within the past five (5) years of a violation of any provision of this Section or a violation of a Federal, State, or local law, Ordinance provision, or other regulation relating to alcohol or related products. (3) The applicant or license holder has had a license to sell alcohol revoked within the preceding five (5) year of the date of application. (4) The applicant fails to provide any information required on the City license application, or provides false or misleading information. (5) The applicant or license holder has outstanding fines, penalties or property taxes owed to the City. (6) The applicant is directly or indirectly the owner of any current license issued under this Section. (7) The place of the licensed business is ineligible for a license under state law or the City Code. (Minn. Stat. S340A.412 or 340A.301). (8) Taxes, assessments, fines or other financial claims of the City are delinquent and unpaid as to the premises to be licensed. (9) The premise to be licensed is located within 300 feet of any church or school. (10) It is impractical to conduct a background and financial investigations due to the unavailability of information. (11) The applicant is not of good moral character and repute. Paragraphs 2 and 10 deserve discussion. Paragraph 2 provides that the following shall be grounds for denying the issuance, transfer or renewal of a license if "the applicant has been convicted in the last five years of a violation of any provision of this section or a violation of a federal, state or local law, ordinance provision or other regulation relating to alcohol or related products." The police investigation shows that MGM operates a total of nine stores in the metropolitan area. In September of 2006, liquor was sold to a minor at the Minnetonka store and a fine was paid. In September 2007, the Rosemount store failed a tobacco compliance check. Bryce Huemoeller, representing Kevin Bresnahan dba Dakota Liquors, in correspondence dated July 24, 2008 (attached) asserts that the above violations constitute grounds for denial. Paragraph 10 of Section 301.600 of the Prior Lake City Code states that the following shall be grounds for denying the issuance, transfer or renewal of a license if, "the premises to be licensed is located within 300 feet of any church or school." (emphasis mine.) The ordinance is not instructive as to what constitutes a school or church, the rationale for the restriction or where the distance is to be measured - building to building or parcel to parcel. The City staff (without surveying the subject properties) has measured the distance of Dakota Liquors and the proposed MGM Wine and Spirits to Kids Count Day Care and Crossroads Church. The results are shown below: Distance Measured Dakota Liquors to Kids Count Proposed MGM to Kids Count Dakota Liquors to Crossroads Church Proposed MGM to Crossroads Church Closest Lot Corner 538 ft. 50 ft. 1,531 ft. 387 ft. Buildinq to Buildinq 642 ft. 145 ft. 925 ft, 889 ft. In July 24, 2008, correspondence, Mr. Huemoeller argues that because the proposed liquor store is within 300 feet of a licensed school-age day care, the license should be denied. The owner of the Kids Count Day Care submitted a letter the same day requesting denial of the license (attached). Conclusion The City Council may wish to receive an abbreviated staff report, complete and close the public hearing and discuss the numerous questions raised by this license request. If, at the conclusion of the Council's discussion, questions remain, the Council should defer action and direct staff to complete additional research and schedule a work session. The 60-day rule does not apply to license requests so the Council has the ability to study the issues thoroughly prior to acting upon the license request if such action is deemed more necessary . ISSUES: The license request and the discussion surrounding it raise a number of issues: 1. Should violation of a tobacco compliance check or sale of liquor to a minor at other stores in other cities be grounds for denial of the license in Prior Lake? According to the Police Department report, "a check of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division does not reveal violations on file for the past licensing period (five years) for the applicant. A check of in-house police records revealed one license violation during the past licensing period." In short, there is no criminal conviction against the corporation or the corporate partners which would meet the statutory or ordinance criteria for denial of a license. Had these violations occurred in Prior Lake, they would not have been considered grounds to deny the liquor license. Prior Lake City Code section 301.1704 sets presumptive penalties for various liquor-related violations. The ordinance provides for license suspensions for three, six and 18 days for the first, second and third sales to a minor. Only on the fourth such violation in 36 months would the Prior Lake ordinance require revocation of the liquor license. Over the last number of years, various liquor stores in Prior Lake have failed our alcohol compliance tests. In each case, the City followed the presumptive penalties of its ordinance. In none of the cases was the liquor license revoked. 2. Should the location of a church or school within 300 feet of the proposed liquor store be the basis for denial? There is no church or school within 300 feet of this site whether measured from property line to property line or building to building. The day care is licensed as a day care; it is not a school. The ordinance does not prohibit liquor license issuance from day care facilities, only from schools and churches. The City has issued intoxicating liquor licenses before to facilities within 300 feet of a day care. The examples include: O'Malley's and Little Lakers Montessori, Sui Lago and Little Lakers Montessori and p.D.a. and the Kids Count Daycare. 3. Are there other criteria the Council should consider? Some have expressed concern about traffic. The roadways, access points and intersections in the Commerce/Boudin area were designed for the commercial zone. In other words, they have greater capacity to carry traffic than residential streets. It was anticipated when the streets were designed in this area that there would be additional larger commercial facilities both because of the location at TH 13 and CR 42 and because vacant commercial lots existed when the intersection was constructed. Moreover the peak traffic generation for the day care is different with the day care peak coming at the beginning and end of typical work days and the liquor store peaks being evening hours and Saturdays. In the opinion of the Police Chief, the addition of one more off-sale liquor store will not substantially add to the police burden. The store will mean two more liquor license checks a year and the same for tobacco if they request and are granted that license. The purpose of the public hearing is to allow issues to be identified and discussed. If questions remain at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Council may defer action. If the Council believes all issues have been discussed then it may take action following the hearing. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are minimal costs to the City whether or not the license is approved. Some additional jobs will be created by the new store. The new store could encourage additional customers in this area who may shop at other commercial establishments in the area. The issuance of the license could encourage further commercial development and redevelopment in the area as is happening with the Crossroads Church site. Whatever the Council does, each member should articulate reasons for his position. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Conduct the public hearing and approve the license request. 2. Conduct the public hearing and deny the license request. 3. Conduct the public hearing and direct the staff to prepare additional information and/or schedule a work session to further discuss issues surrounding this request. RECOMMENDED As deemed appropriate by the City Council. MOTION: Property & Structure Setbacks for Liqour Retail Stores r'~" ,- ')jj' . '1.1 /. [ - (! .' . \u.....;,.~",/~: > , '1i · j, ..~:;,~~~::;~:~.y;l.. .. - ~ ..-_'eIk - LEGEND Building separation Property separation N + - - Feet 150 225 300 o 37.575 PRIOR LAKE POLICE DEPARTMENT SUPPLEMENT AL REPORT DATE & TIME REPORTED: CASE FILE NUMBER: OFFICER ASSIGNED: 06-12-08 at 0930 hours/9:30 a.m. 08004512 Rick Denmark #25 DATE & TIME OF REPORT: 06-12-08, 0930hrs/9:30 a.m. On June 12,2008, I was assigned a background investigation for a liquor license application. The following business/subject submitted application (listed below the applicant's information, is a summary of any civil lawsuits and/or liquor law violations incurred throughout the past five years): License Applicant: Type of License: MGM Wine and Sprits Off-Sale Intoxicating liquor 14173 Commerce Ave. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Terrance Joseph Maglich 16500 Grays Bay Wayzata, MN 55391 DaB/ 08-28-48 I checked with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division and they did not have any violations on file for the past licensing period, for the applicant. A check of in-house police records revealed one license violation, during the past licensing period, for the applicant. 09/06, SOLD ALCOHOL TO A MINOR, Minnetonka MN (paid fine). Application submitted for Chief O'Rourke's review. By: Det. Rick Denmark #25 Prior Lake Police Department K:\permit liquor-doc halleland lewis nilan & johnson PA Attorneys at Law 600 U.s. Bank Plaza South 220 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-4501 Office: 612.338.1838 Fax: 612,338.7858 www.halleland.com Suesan Lea Pace, Esq. Direct Dial: 612.573.2902 E-Mail: space@halleland.com July 28, 2008 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Bryce D. Huemoeller, Esq. Huemoeller, Bates & Gontarek 16670 Franklin Trail P.O. Box 67 Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Request to Reconsider Agenda Report regarding Proposal to Limit Distance between Off-Sale Liquor Establishments Our File No. 20245-0001 Dear Mr. Huemoeller, I was copied on your July 14, 20081etter to the Mayor and City Council regarding the above matter. I have been asked to respond to the issues raised in that letter. In your letter you write: At the council meeting, three of the council members appeared inclined to move the request forward to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and to take testimony on the requested ordinance change. Those council members appeared to change their mind, and to vote against Bresnahan's request, based on the City Attorney's legal opinion that MGM's application would be subject to the ordinance in effect on the date of application. This statement is inaccurate for three reasons. First, I do not believe there was any clear indication from the Council members as to what direction they intended to take on the Agenda Report until they voted. Regardless, any sense you may have had that Council members were "inclined" to vote one way or another has no bearing to the action that the Council did, in fact, take. Second, with respect to the action that the Council did take, I note that if the Council had approved the Agenda Report, the next step would not necessarily have been for the Planning Commission to hold a public meeting. The alternatives presented to the Council in the Agenda Report were (1) to direct staff to prepare a proposed ordinance amendment imposing licensing restrictions based on distance between licensees; (2) to direct staff to prepare a proposed 4833-5151-2066 Bryce Huemoeller, Esq. July 28, 2008 Page 2 ordinance amendment establishing a maximum number oflicenses the City may issue; or (3) the option the Council adopted, which was to take no action and leave the ordinance criteria as presently written. Had the Council decided to direct staff to prepare proposed amendments, a public hearing would not have been required, although the Council would, of course, have had the discretion to hold such a hearing if it determined that it would be helpful to receive public input on this issue. In any event, because the Council decided to take no further action on the Agenda Report, the question of holding a public hearing is moot. 1 Third, you suggest that the Council's supposed change in direction resulted from my opinion that MGM's application would be subject to the ordinance in effect on the date of application. To that point, you argue that my opinion was incorrect because applicants for liquor licenses have no vested right to such license, and that the City would not be estopped from imposing a new licensing scheme on MGM. With respect to vested rights, while the cases that you cite in your letter arise in the zoning context and not the context of liquor licenses, the City does not contest that applicants for liquor licenses have no inherent vested right in a license or a renewal thereof. Nor does the City contest that license applicants generally have no claim for estoppel absent some detrimental reliance on municipal action. But these arguments miss the point. The issue is not whether MGM has vested rights in its license application or whether the City would be estopped from denying MGM's application. Rather, the issue is the Council's consideration of your client's request in light of the record presented to it. As you are aware, your client appeared at a Public Forum requesting consideration of its concern that competition from MGM would hurt its business and proposing that the City amend its licensing scheme in order to protect it from competition. Historically, it has been the City's practice to apply the ordinances in existence at the time it receives an application for a permit or license to that application. To change that practice in response to MGM's application in order to apply a new ordinance to MGM would, on this record, create the impression that MGM was being singled out for differential treatment based solely on a competitor's desire to stifle competition. Further, it is important to remember that while the City Council has broad discretion in deciding the manner in which liquor licenses are issued, regulated, and revoked, see Bourbon Bar & Cafe Corp. v. City ofSt. Paul, 466 N.W.2d 438,440 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991), that discretion is not without limits. To the contrary, municipal actions regarding how liquor licenses are issued, 1 In this regard, your suggestion that Minn. Stat. ~ 15.99 would authorize an extension of time to consider MGM's license application while the City held a public hearing on proposed ordinance amendments misses the point. As noted, a public hearing would not have been required if the Council had decided to proceed with consideration of proposed amendments. Moreover, Section 15.99 sets a 60-day timeline for municipalities to approve or deny a written request relating to zoning matters, and allows extensions to that timeline. That section does not apply to an application for a liquor licenses. See Minn. Stat ~ 15.99, subd. I(c) (defming a "request" subject to the 6O-day timeline as a written application for a permit, license, or other governmental approval "related to zoning, septic systems, watershed district review, soil and water conservation district review, or the expansion of the metropolitan urban service area.") Thus, Section 15.99 has not bearing on the Council's consideration of MGM's license application. 4833-5151-2066 Bryce Huemoeller, Esq. July 28, 2008 Page 3 regulated, and revoked cannot be "unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or fraudulent." Wadja v. City of Minneapolis, 310 Minn. 339,343,246 N.W.2d 455, 457 (1976). Applying that standard, courts have declined to overturn decisions to deny liquor licenses when those decisions were based on traditional police-powers considerations, such as public health, safety, and welfare. See, e.g., Country Liquors, Inc. v. City Council, 264 N.W.2d 821,824 (Minn. 1978) (upholding decision to deny license application based on potentially adverse impact of the proposed liquor store on a number of community programs); Polman v. City of Royalton, 311 Minn. 555, 556, 249 N.W.2d 466,467 (1977) (upholding decision to deny liquor license based on public welfare concerns related to traffic and law enforcement). But the Minnesota Supreme Court has explained that the decision to deny a liquor license may, nonetheless, be deemed arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable when it is based on factors "not rationally related to [the applicant's] qualifications as a license applicant" or to "whether the premises themselves are inherently unsuitable as the location" of a licensed use. See Country Liquors, 264 N.W.2d at 824-25 (citing Wadja, 246 N.W.2d at 459). The decision to adopt a new ordinance in order to deny MGM's application in response to your client's request to be protected from competition would bear no rational relation to MGM's qualifications as a licensee or to the suitability of the location ofMGM's proposed liquor store. Nor would such a decision bear any rational relation to other health, welfare or safety concerns. I note that we have researched decisions from Minnesota and other jurisdictions to determine whether protecting an existing licensee from competition is a valid justification for denying an application for a new liquor license. The only Minnesota decision we have found even approaching that issue is Tabaka v. Wabedo Tp., 2005 WL 757864 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 5, 2005), in which the court concluded that a city's decision to deny a liquor license application in order to, among other reasons, protect its own municipal liquor store was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Id at *2. Notably, municipal liquor stores enjoy special protection from competition under state law. See Minn. Stat. ~ 340A.60 1. And while "preventing the diminishment of [municipal] revenues" may be a defensible basis for stifling competition, because necessary to "protect the welfare of the city," Tabaka, 2005 WL 757864, *2, our research has revealed no authority to support the proposition that amending a licensing ordinance to protect the welfare of a private business would be justified by any public health, safety or welfare concern. Indeed, on the record created by your client's comments at the Forum, a court could easily conclude - if the proposed amendments were enacted and resulted in the denial of MGM' s license application - that the amendments were designed to give effect to privately initiated restraints on trade, and thus was invalid under the Sherman Act. Moreover, the City would not be immunized from such a claim under the so-called "state action exemption" to Sherman Act liability, as a municipal ordinance enacted in response to a business owner's request to protect him from competition neither constitutes the action of the State itself in its sovereign capacity, nor does it constitute "municipal action in furtherance or implementation of clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy." Community Comm 'ns Co. v. City of Boulder, 455 U.S. 40, 52 (1982). In this regard, we note that at least one federal court of appeals has found that 4833-5151-2066 Bryce Huemoeller, Esq. July 28, 2008 Page 4 antitrust liability could lie against a municipality for establishing a liquor-licensing scheme that could be subject to anti-competitive collusion between municipal decision makers and existing licensees. See Grendel's Den, Inc. v. Goodwin, 662 F.2d 88, 99-100 (1st Cir. 1981). Additionally and importantly, there is no evidence that the two situations which currently exist, where off-sale liquor stores are within a half-mile of one another, is detrimental to the public health, welfare or safety. In summary, the record created by your client raises significant concerns that if the City were to amend its licensing ordinance in order to deny MGM's license application and shield your client from competition, that decision would be struck down as arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and in violation of antitrust law. Those concerns are only heightened by the fact that it has not been the City's practice to apply new ordinances retroactively to pending applications. This is not to say that, on a record reflecting valid health, safety or welfare concerns, the Council could or would not amend its licensing ordinance to limit the total number of licensees within a given distance of one another. That, however, is not the record on which your client's request was brought before the Council, or upon which that request was denied. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions regarding this matter. Thank you. Very truly yours, ! f? ,.J-i114tif/LI-tJG Sue,san Lea Pace, Esq. cc: Mayor Jack Haugen City Council Members Frank Boyles, City Manager 4833-5151-2066 JAMES D. BATES DEANG. GAVIN ALLISON J. GONTAREK BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER THERESA A. PETERSON HUEMOELLER, BATES & GONTAREK PLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL P.O. BOX 67 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 (952) 447-2131 Fax: (952) 447-5628 E-mail: HBG@priorlakelaw.com July 24, 2008 City Council Members City of Prior Lake 4646 Dakota Street Prior Lake,:MN 55372 Re: City Council Meeting August 4, 2008 Opposition to MGM Liquor License Application Dear Council: We represent Kevin Bresnahan and Dakota Liquors, and this letter is submitted in opposition to MGM's liquor license application, scheduled for hearing by the City Council on August 4,2008. We request that the Council deny MGM's application for the following reasons. 1. The potential MGM store would be within 300 feet of a licensed school-age day care center, which is grounds for denial of the license under Prior Lake Ordinance 301.600. Prior Lake's liquor ordinance states that no person shall sell or offer for sale any alcohol without having a license. In order to obtain a license, an applicant must provide a license fee, insurance and other infonnation. The ordinance lists several specific grounds for denial of the application. One of the conditions requiring denial is if the proposed off-sale liquor store is located within 300 feet of "any church or school." P.L. Code 301.600(9). July 24, 2008 Page 2 The MGM liquor license should be denied because the MGM liquor store would be located less than 300 feet from the Kids Count Daycare and Learning Center. Kids Count is a licensed day care center providing care and instruction for children from infants through age 12. Heather McCaustlin, the President and Owner of Kids Count has made a separate objection to the MGM application, noting that the prospective MGM liquor store is only 170 feet from the day care building entrance and less than 90 feet from the day care's play area. Kids Count is licensed by the State of Minnesota to care for 96 children, of which 30 are school age children. "School age child care program" is defined as "a program licensed or required to be licensed as a child care center, serving more than ten children with the primary purpose of providing child care for school age children." Minn. Stat. ~ 245A.02, subd. 17. The 30 school age children who attend Kids Count are at the center either before school, after school, or both. The school age children take the public school bus from the daycare center to their elementary schools. The canons of statutory construction state that words and phrases are construed "according to their common and approved usage." The dictionary definition of school is "an organization that provides instruction; an institution for the teaching of children" (www.Merriarn-Webster.com 2008). Kids Count fits within the common and every day meaning of school because it is an institution providing care, instruction and learning for school age children. If the ordinance is ambiguous in any way, the second step in statutory interpretation involves looking at the City's intent. A common sense interpretation of the City's intent in requiring a 300 feet separation between liquor stores and "any church or school" would be that safety of children is the paramount concern. A liquor store in close proximity to a school or church would result in increased traffic, and the possibility of intoxicated persons entering or leaving the store in their vehicles. The daycare's school aged children are the same ages as children in elementary and middle schools obviously meant to be protected by the word "school." The ordinance also protects parochial school children of all ages who attend school on church grounds. Minnesota Statutes state that off-sale liquor stores may not be located "within 1500 feet of any public school that is not within a city." Minn. Stat. ~ 340A.412, subd. 8. A local authority "may impose further restrictions and regulations on the sale and possession of alcoholic beverages within its limits." Minn. Stat. S 340A.509. The Prior Lake ordinance does not include the word "public," and can therefore be construed to have deliberately omitted any such restriction on the word "school." The Prior Lake July 24, 2008 Page 3 ordinance, by leaving out the word "public" obviously chose to broaden the meaning of school to include both private and public schools. Kids Count is a private day care center located less than 200 feet from the proposed MGM store. With 30 school age children attending Kids Count, and riding their school buses from Kids Count to the public schools, the intended protections of the ordinance should be applied. Based on Kids Count's location less than 300 feet from the proposed MGM store, MGM's liquor license application must be denied. 2. MGM violated a City of Minnetonka ordinance in 2006 by selling alcohol to a minor, which is grounds for denial of the license under Prior Lake Code 301.600(2). Second, the MGM liquor license application should be denied because MGM in 2006 violated Minnetonka's city laws by selling alcohol to a minor. This is the exact type of violation prohibiting MGM from obtaining a liquor license in Prior Lake. Prior Lake Ordinance 301.600(2) states that a liquor license application shall be denied when "The applicant has been convicted within the past five (5) years of a violation of any provision of this Section or a violation of a Federal, State, or local law, Ordinance provision, or other regulation relating to alcohol or related products." MGM disclosed in its liquor license application the following violation: 9/06 - Sale of alcohol to a minor - 4950 County Road 101, Minnetonka ($350.00 fine paid to the City of Minnetonka on 3/9/07). Selling alcohol to a minor is precisely the type of offense that Prior Lake seeks to avoid in its community. Prior Lake strictly enforces violations by existing liquor license holders by immediately revoking or suspending liquor licenses. P.L. Code 301.1000. In 1999, the City held a public hearing on the penalty to be imposed on O'Malley's on Main for selling alcohol to a minor. Despite the fact that the business owner had no previous violations, had implemented new procedures, and had terminated the employee who allowed the minor to be served, the Council refused to consider the business owner's request for leniency, strictly upholding the enforcement of a three-day suspension of O'Malley's liquor license. Prior Lake City Council Meeting Minutes May 17, 1999. The violation of selling alcohol to a minor occurred within the last two years, and is grounds for denying MGM's application because MGM violated a local law relating to alcohol or related products. July 24, 2008 Page 4 3. Denial of the MGM application is consistent with 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Community Safety Task Force Report's goals of ensuring a safe and secure community. According to Prior Lake's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, one of the City's goals is to enhance quality of life for its citizens by providing economic vitality and ensuring a safe and secure community. Included under the security goal is the importance of ensuring the public safety, health and welfare, by delivering basic public services which protect and preserve the cOlmnunity and its residents. Likewise, the conclusions of the Community Safety Task Force Report, discussed at length during the July 7 council meeting, emphasized that controlling the abuse of drugs and liquor was the community's #1 concern. Restricting the number of liquor stores in Prior Lake, and specifically denying MGM's liquor license application, meets the goals of both the Comprehensive Plan and the Safety Task Force report of ensuring a safe and secure community by limiting and controlling access to alcohol. Conclusion Based on the reasons cited above, we respectfully request the Council deny the MGM liquor license application. The findings of fact listed below provide undisputable support for the Council's denial. · The Prior Lake City Ordinance requires that no off-sale liquor store be located within 300 feet of a church or school. · The Kids Count day care center is located less than 300 feet from the proposed MGM off-sale liquor store. · The Kids Count day care center fits within the COlmnon and everyday usage of the word "school." · Maintaining more than 300 feet between the Kids Count day care center and a liquor store fulfills the ordinance's presumed intent of protecting children and promoting safety in the community. July 24, 2008 Page 5 · The Prior Lake City Ordinance requires denial of a license application if the applicant has been convicted of a liquor violation within the past 5 years. · MOM received a liquor violation in Minnetonka in September 2006 for selling alcohol to a minor, for which it paid a fine. · The City's Comprehensive Plan and Community Safety Task Force Report emphasize the goals of safety and security for Prior Lake residents. · Limiting the number and location of liquor stores in Prior Lake promotes safety and security and reduces access to alcohol. Sincerely yours, ~~~~ Bryce D. Huemoeller cc: Suesan Pace Kevin Bresnahan Date: July 24, 2008 To: Mr. Frank Boyles Prior Lake City Manager Re: MGM Liquor license application Objection by Kids Count Daycare and Learning Center, Inc. as the application is in violation of City of Prior Lake Liquor Control Ordinance 301.600. Dear Sir: The undersigned as President and Owner of Kids Count Daycare and Learning Center states that the liquor license application ofMGM Liquor does not comply with your ordinance 301.600. 301.600 Denial: The premises to be licensed located within 300 feet of any church or school. The Kids Count Daycare and Learning Center building entrance is 170 feet from the comer of the premises to be leased by MGM Liquor. I have enclosed a site plan obtained from Scott County with attached scale of 1" = 97 feet. The calculation of scale between the buildings from the edge of the MGM building to our front door is 170 feet. This is in violation of your ordinance 301.600. The distance to the play area is less than 90 feet. I have enclosed a copy of our childcare center license that states we have occupancy of 96 children, of which 30 are school age. We provide daycare and learning services as well as an educational curriculum for children from infant to age 12 years old. This license is issued by the State of Minnesota Department of Human Services, license # 1034376-3ccc, under MN Statute 245A.01. The statute 245A.02 subdivision 17 states: School age child care program means a proposed license as a child care center servicing more than ten (10) children with the primary care for school age children. I would be willing to testify at the upcoming public hearing regarding the MGM Liquor license application and my request for denial of that license. Dated: 1/J-<l/0r;- Kids Count Daycare and Learning Center BY()/~ J1~ President/Owner CC: City of Prior Lake Mayor City Council members Enclosures: Map with scale License Print Preview Page 1 2 ~~(j)t~ CI[I)\!.l1llli\ry 9 MN 'j:,L:3, 4; "r--~~- t'*~~'. ".~i'" ; " i en ,~, ?: S r t<J t"} - :~ S' :1: f , Parcel1D251940040 ~--------_._~._--~--~---~----_._-~_._-~------------------ ENGELSMA LIMITED . PARTNERSHIP ---_._----,-~_.--_.~~--_.- ~--~-. Address 1 4210 WOLD SHAKOPEE RD Deeded Acreage -- ---1-- --- '0 , n____ ,~_._____u_ ______._____________. i Taxpayer Name GIS Acreage 11.31794 Zoning Classification .._------ ------ ---_.. ---- -~_. ~----_.__._------ ,- -- ---'-.--.---- --~-- - -_.-- School District 719 ___~ ____________.~__~_______~________. - __ ...__U__"____._. ____ Estimated Land Value $580,500 i Legal Description . JAMES 1 ST ADDN Lot-004 1 . Block-001 h____,~~___~~____ ._____________________~____ ! PLAT-25194 JAMES 1ST ADDN ___.__m____.__.__. _______._..___~___.____~_ ____.._.____ _________ _______._~___~____.~_,----------- ___._.._______.___ ..____._._~,--------.--.--.-~.-- _____~~~ _.___~__~.___~~ '1 :4 BLOOMINGTON MN, 55437 ! Plat Name Address2 : Address3 Block Lot Estimated Buildings Value $769,500 Septic Type Total Estimated Market Value : $1 ,350,000 Year Built 1994 i Date Installed . Tank 1 Capacity ...- --------.- - --.----. -_.. .--.-- Tank 2 Capacity ^<,.__._ _" _.u______________~_._______.___~___ __~~ Pump Tank Capacity . Date of Last Pump --------"-,-- ------~-_. -------- Unique Well & Boring No. Home Style ; N/A - --~ -. -~~-_._------- -------.--------. -~. --"--- --~._- -~--- -...-- ..~!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.__._1~~1.~ Bedrooms :0 _. _____.___n__ ~ _. ___~_ __. _ ____ __~_. ___ ____ _________________ _____ Bathrooms 6 http:// gis/ScottGIS/printPreview .aspx?PrintOptData=Scott%20County, %20MNI0IOltruelfal... 7/16/2008 Print Preview Page2of2 Last Sale Date Last Sale Value Well Depth Drilled Well Date Drilled Disclaimer: This information is to be used for reference purposes only. Scott County does not guarantee accuracy of the material contained herein and is not responsible for misuse or misinterpretation. Surveyor information is updated daily and the data for this application is updated weekly. For current information contact the Scott County Surveyors Office. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes S466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the County shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend. indemnify, and hold harmless the County from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. Map S<::al~ 1 inch = 97 feet http://gis/ScottGIS:printPreview.aspx'!PrintOptData Scott%.20County, (XI.20rVIN/oiO/truel tal... 7/ 16/200~ I~~ (/) ~ 't:J 0\ ;:0 ...... r- Oc: CD o i)' ......0 n Vl r wCD ~ er c: . iT ..J:>.~ 0", c. I---l (1) ~~ WCD ......CD -I 3 ......:JZ t::r CD "-" Dl ~l o\s o~ 3 N p I ::J 00 wO' 003 !'! \0 () I CD 0 ~ (')~ 0\ 3 (') 3 (') I (ii' W fJl o' \0 ::s ~ S' -.......) (Q I---l ......r- Ni)' __CD w'" '" ......CD __a. ~ol 0 00 o~ == ~ ~ 00 "'1 ~ t:s.~ ~ == ~ ~Q.f""I'o = -~ ~. ~ 0 = ~ = ~ = ~ = ~ ~ A'~.AT'" f""I'o -.. 'l .' ~'~;'~~A . . ~ ;:$t~i'L~, :f~:~;~~ g =,[i(g;i~f"~~:-'i~: f""I'o O-'<\"~'.L, ""''ot/.,&:. = o""\...'I(:~' .:~~' ~ =, .."....~Q f""I'o f""I'o<... ,...< C/)iJQ?< :-+ 0 <' ~ iJ -. ..... Pl CD ~. 2 !:..~g~ - VJ s:~s.o z~c:E.! 8;[\)20 -" :::l (l) .f>. ~."O ~ c6e; o .... ~ s [\) (l) ~ .... o ...., :t: c 3 a :I '" CD ~ ;:;" CD III "t:I-~c ow .j>. - -n en ..., (/)=-1 ::1. t s.: 0 '0 0 0 .j>. NPl .... 0 CDCO Sl 00 '" ~ (0 l;I.l 'i:l ~ -"0 Pl <.... ::l n @ ::l Pl g 'El -.3 t""'OnlC t:l'::r CIJ P- g' ~. (1) 0 nUl ~nom o 0 n P- 3: ~8!2. ::r 0- ....~ .'" <: CDO (1) 0 S c ;1~ ~ 0 .., n s.: ,,- . ~ .... !. c: P- (0 0'-<> !2. 1,0 t:r (1) "r 2 o~ ::l ~ (JQ 0\ Pl '" ~_. ~ ~ m c: (0 ~ ~ c:2 ~ (') !II ~ ~ ..... CD~ VI;> 21 )> ~ ~ ~ ~ "'.... (') c.Ul VI (1)- .. 0 ~ ~ ..~ w <: .. 00000,-< -..J(1)~ ooooo~ >S"'o . .. NZo.. ~~~~~~ .... w '1::1...... ~ g:: Ui t"'" ~ (') I .... ..J:>. (J) o..[Q 0- ~ s..: c (1) .... ootl.l e- m S '" '" '" '" '" ~Et::::': rO(') ::r c. w w w w w . (1) 0.. (l) oi S' 0 0000 g ::3 n ~(')O .... (]Q 'i:l'i:l'i:l'i:l'i:l (1) S' 21 (l) 0 s s;:: n ~~~~~ ~ g .... '" (") (1) (") (1) ~t:rn 2(l)t:j (') ~ ~ =.: C1> gj (1) ~o..~ ....~ ..... g (") tI.l l: (') (1) .... S' G 21 .... V't;J>!:; - ..... r> .'" (1) n ~ <: (l) ::3 ~ '0 (') n ......:J (l) ~ agn NZo.. s..: .... '-' ~ I r '" ~.'" 0 (l) (') 0'" Pl a 0 wl:'<: c:: oS: ..., S' a 0(1) gf OCI t:j o~ VI.... (1) (') ~ .... 0 g 0 .... I,Ot:r @ VI (1) (l) 0'" .... w.... ~ . ~ 00.. 0.. :::i21 r 00.. . .. (l) . '" a 0 ...., S' :s: C1C; g' (1) '" 0 .... Pl