The URL can be used to link to this page

272173 WHITE - C�TV CLERK � ,i,/��;'� PINK - FINANCE COUI1ClI �� CAN�.RV - DEPARTMENT TY F SA I NT PAUL File NO. BLUE - �vi7tVOR � � ou ' Resolution Presented By � Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, the License Committee of the Counci� of the City of Saint Paul conducted a public hearing on November 1, 1978 , on the application of the Green Mill, Inc. , for an on-sale wine license in conjunction with the restaurant �operation known as the Green Mill, 57 Hamline Avenue So; and WHEREAS, the corporate officers of the Green Mill, Inc. , appeared together with their attorney, Donald Willeke, IDS Tower, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, neighborhood residents testified concerning difficulties they have experienced with the Green Mill operation; and WHEREAS, after discussion with the residents, the attorney for the applicant and the License Committee it was agreed that the Green Mill managers would meet with the Police Department and area residents � to discuss neighborhood problems with the Green Mill's operation; and WHEREAS, it was recommende�l by the eommittee and agreed to by the applicant that the applica��.on �or a� on-sale wine license at 57 Hamline Avenue So. , would be granted conditionally by the Committee subject to review on January 31� 1979; and WHEREAS, it was furth�r �agr�ed to by th� applicant that the Council may, for good cause, in its"discretion refuse to grant a renewal of said on-sale wine lice�.�e after January 31, 19?9. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cou�cil of the City of Saint Paul, that the application for an o�-�ale wi�e license of the Green Mill, Inc. , at 57 Hamline Avenue So. , is gran,�ed subject to the condition that the Council will review the neighborhood complaints concerning the operation of the Green Mill prior to renewing the on-sale wine license on January 31, 1979; and COU[VCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Butler In Favor Hozza Hunt Levine _ __ Against BY — Maddox Showalter Tedesco Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY By, Approved by i4lavor: Date _ Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY — — BY WHITE — CiTV CLERK �' /�i��',[ PINK — FINANCE GITY OF SAINT PAITL Council � fF1+ �J CAN�ARY — C�EPARTMENT F1Ie NO. BLUE — n.TAVOR Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Saint Paul reserves the right to refuse to renew the aforementioned on-sale wine license if in its discretion, it feels that denial of the renewal of said license is in the best interest of the community. COU[VCILMEN Yeas Nays Requested by Department oE: Butler In Favor Hozza Hunt Levine _ __ Against BY -- Maddox Showalter Tedesco �C 7 �� Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by uncil: Date — � Certif d Yassed Cou .il Secre ary" B B}- l�ppro y Wlavor. D _� � �TA Approved by Mayor for mi ' n to Council BY �1�' — BY M M • � � �" / .�/�� . 1 � . . � ' . t 1 1 1 l 1 ( . � . 1 . . �� • _ _ _�. --�.��,� �.p - � . , t�v�� _ . __ . . ,�dk.�.Q u �n.� � 1oc►�(na�o� .� ' ��.�n d?�.c�.St��c�ns�m _ � . �. � 'c�-s ' � � ' �.o . .��. ��,g � h� cl�� a,�Q �°° . . �:�mc.� hc,� _=�'-�a�- t,sa -t,o �s�,-- - rnr� �L.�-:.__W�..wc�.Q _ t��, -� �..� �.�o -��o_ _ r �P� �c��ow�% �- .�'.�-a� -; • `l . -�,c�� _ �• _ . , . ��-� � �`� Q�.. � .` wc7k4 �. C�l��.ow� o�cr o�sz.. � . . ' a�oc� . � t�s �d? 9-� � b � ' c�? o,�@- c�'�- t�t.�a.i�t. ' '1'c c�1 _ �� Jeo ` ' �R�-s u.�c.�.Q �_ . , �__ _ __ : __ __ __ -._ . . - . __ __ _ _ • � � ._ - `��.� ast�..� �� o► �- . �� . , , ��,�_, � � a u�- a fa. bc�� ' ' . - -,, Co►n�m . �n�e;�._"t �, 4 � .: . � � . «�, ��\}\��'�s�-Ds I- . � � �-� � � - • �('�f�� V � r . � _ _ _ _ i � : - . . � . ��h�,�.Q.�.�� t�cst��A., cr✓�— c�s�:�Q f � � . - _ >�t..c.�,�� c�s-e,. �'�e.. �[�e�n, j . . � _ �� ! . , � � ► � � � � . � � 3 , � , - t i ti � � , , , . . • I - ,,,�,5 � Q��2 d�.s�� `�'° �'`!"� . -- . � � � r�� __ � -f� _I�_eoy,, _ c�.�e� !2�a�o�g ' _�1Q � . _ �__ I _ _ ____ . �t �I�b.c�s - --- _ __ . � ��c.�e� _ _ � _ _ _ __ � d _ _—�..__ _ �_ _:__ _ _ - _---- --. __ _-- _ . _ ___ _ . _ �sI��C� _ _: _ --- - _ . !_ c.�_��..,�-� _ _ - � ' _- __ _ . �c,`o- o �_ _ � ---- f � ��_-_ _ �3O_ _ _ ____ __._ ._ ---�- ---_ -_ __ -- ---. - - - __ . . � ' _ '. - , , : �.�t-?�$�. . � , � _ . . � _. __ --- ------ _ __ _ _ _ � .. . _ : � _ . :: _ . _ _ _ __ _______ _ _ ___ _ _- - --- __ _ __.__ -_L-- - _ . � �- :��, _ _ __ _ _ _ I - � � . . . �� . . ... .:. . . . I Y ' . . ; 1 ..._ � . ... _ _::_. �._ ...._._.__._.._._.�.._ .. _. ._. .._ "."_ ____{ . . ...'" '�._ , ' . ' � - .... . ( . . . � � - � . ._.__._.. .. ._.__ .._. . __'_ _ _ � .. _ '_ . '_'"'_' _"'_ ___.._....... ._ , . . .- . . ._ . .. �. " . .' ( .. .. : � .. . . . - . ._...__. . _ .. .. _ . .� . . . - _ _ � . --- _ _ _ . i . -- - ' -� , �, , . Ratio of Criraes best, proximity to commercial strips would ex- J _* ''�o.�rea� plain only one-tenth of the crime clustering ` `' around these facilities. As an additional control, a set of random sites�was selected without reference to land use. As shown in Figure 13.4, there was no clustering Z of crime around these randomly selected sites. 1.6 1.36 .98 1.27 1.07' .98 ^� ...90 .S1 1.10 .83 o Reporting Rates o .t .2 .3 .4 .s It may be argued that the clustering of crime Distance tn hfiles from about these facilities is a result of differential Selec[ed Site reporting rates of crime in the areas surrounding Figure �3.4: Spatial distribution of on sale facilities. Data used in the gresent crimes around randa.nly selected coauner- cial sites and other randomly selected analysis were based Ori reported crimes. It 1S s�ce5. Similar pat[erns o��r for each possible that persons living closest to the facil- individual crime. Source: rSinneapolis ity are more sensitive to crime and report crime police offense repor[ data. more frequently than do persons living farther Distance between all crime s�ces away from the faeility. TO 3CCOUrit for tt1iS pOS- and , sibility, it was assumed that persons living near Commercial sites the facility (from .0 ta . 1 miles) reported 100 (n = 2,azo).a percent of the crimes in their band, while persons living farther distances away had typical report- ._----Other S�ces (n = 2,siz). ing rates as established by victimization sur- an = 5,232 distances; that is, V2yS. 1 5,232 distances were measured from the This procedure SSSUmeS tt12 greatesr possible zana�,iy selected stces ro offense reduction in crime in the first band. Fi ure 13.5 sites. A singLe crime could account g for cWO distances �e cWO s�ces were io_ shows that, even if crime figures are ad�usted to cated within one-half mile of ct,e reflect the underreporting of all crimes in areas crime. Thus, there are more distances nOt adjaeent to these faeilities, th2 C1uSt0rl.ri than crimes. g b ti offenses of crime around on sale establishments is still % land acreage • offenses and seven times greater than expected. acreage are measured in tenns of per- centage of offenses and percentage of acreage within one-half mile of the Su mm a r y � site in order to standardize the ratio. This standardization ailows a � comparison of crime clustering around other nodes. This analysis has shown a distinct clustering of crime around establishments with on sale li- censes which were included in this study. Whi1e data are reported for a small sample of areas, the patterns are too striking not ta be seriously con- sidered. Several alternative explanations for clustex- ing were tested. In all cases, the conclusion re- mained that there was a strong clustering of crime within one-tenth of a mile of the facility. This clustering was not limited to any one crime. There is one final alternative explanation which has not been tested directly. That is, these establishments may have been located in areas which had a great deal. of crime before the Illlllllllllillllllllllllllllllll!Illlllli�llilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIifIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIiIIIIIIIIiIIIiIIIffIIifIIlHllllliflllllllllllllillllllllilllllllifllllllllllllfl!IIIIIII!fl 1 Victimization rates and rates of unrepor�ted crimes were ob- tained from U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Victimizatior. Survels in 13 American Cities (Washington, D.C.- U.S. Governnen[ 2 2$ Printing Office, 1975), p. 134. �