Loading...
05-703Council File # ��_ 703 Green Sheet # 3027523 ClTY OF Presented Refened To Committee Date WHEREAS, the Legislative Hearing Officer recommends that license application (ID # 20050001331) for a Liquor Off Sale License by The Wine Thief, Inc., doing business as The Wine Thief, 1787 St. Clair Avenue, be approved with the following condition: Delivery trucks will deliver no more than 3 times per day or 20 tunes per week; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby approves this license application with the aforementioned condition. Yeas Nays Absent Benanav ✓ Bostrom � Harris ;� Helgen ,� Lanhy .� Montgomery � Thune ✓ � � D Adopted by Council: Date �i tc�cS� 3 a Q�� Adoprion B Approved By: RESOLUTION MINNESOTA rI Requested by Department of. � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � � _ . � _ ... O � y �� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet DepartrneMfoffice/council: Date Initiated: �o ���� 27JUL-05 Green Sheet NO: 3027523 CoMact Person 8 Phone: ���ent Sent To Person InifiaVDate MasciB Moenno�xl � 0 oasci{ 266E560 q��9n 1 ouncii De artmentDirector Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number Z ' Cierk For Routing 3 Order 4 5 Sotal # of Signature Pages _(Ciip Ali Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Approval of license application with condition, per the Legislative Hearing Officer, for a Liquor Off Sale License for The Wine Thief, 1787 St. Clair Avenue. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service ConVacts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this persoNfirm ever worked under a contrect for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has fhis person�rm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this pecson/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No � Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportuniry (Who, What, When, Where, Why): � Advantages If Approved: ' Disadvanta�es If annroved: �`rdUll� ReSQ��(,+� (,� ��.}�� � ! �Qfl�J DisadvaMaqes If Not Apnroved: � ; � ._. . . ° . f .. Total Amount af CosVRevenue Budgeted: Trensaction: Fundin5l Source: Activity Number: Financial Information: (Explain) - ./ � �� " � lf.Yi:1�3� Lx1I:3ni "� � CITY OF SAINT PAUL OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL (►�I�1T►�[i : _77\►`11]iL�l Date: July 15, 2005 To_ Jerry Hendrickson, Deputy City Attorney /,� � From: vlarcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer ��/�� f 05- 703 Re: City Attorney Opinion Needed on Method of Measurement for Legislative Code Section 409.06 (i)(2) Pertaining to %2 Mile Distance Requirement between Off-Sale Liquor Establishments I conducted a legislative heazing on Monday, 7uly 11, 2005 for the Wine Thief, a business to be operated by Paul and Katrina Wentzel at 1785 Saint Clair Avenue. There were a number of letters and people testifying both in favor of and in opposition to the issuance of the license. Among those, Mr. James Thomas, proprietor of Thomas Liquors. It was his contention that the proposed off-sale liquor store would be within'/2 mile of his establishment. In the hearing, Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) staff indicated two measurements had been done, and both indicated the proposed estabiishment was more than'/z mile from Thomas Liquors. Based on consideration all of the information in the letters and testimony I received, as well as the relevant sections of the Legislative Code, I recommended approval of the license with one condition. Later in the day I received a call from LIEP staff indicating the distance had been re-measured, and they were suspending their recommendation to me, which had been approval of the license with no conditions. It appeared that from building to building, there was more than'/z mile separating the stores, but from property line to property line, there was not. I therefore notified staff and the applicants that I would be re-opening the hearing on this matter and that I would send additional information to them on the details later in the week. Following this re-measurement, LIEP staff reviewed the policies and procedures for measuring distance between off-sale liquor locations. It turns out that the Legislative Code is silent on the matter of how the measurement should be done. Based on their review of similaz situations in other parts of the Code, LIEP reinstated their recommendation for approval of the license. A letter outlining this position is attached. The stakes for the applicants aze great and a time delay will affect them. The question at hand is also legai in nature. Therefore, as you are the attorney for me in Legislative Hearing matters, I am formally requesting a City Attorney opinion of how such a measurement should be conducted. I would like to have this matter ready for the Council's August 3, 2005 agenda. Therefore, a response by July 27 is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Attachment: Janeen Rosas Letter of July 14, 2005 Regarding the Off-Sale Liquor License Application at 1785 Saint Clair Avenue Copy: Councilmember Pat Harris Trudy Moloney, Director of Council Operations Janeen Rosas, Director of LIEP Christine Rozek, Deputy Director of LIEP, Licensing Section CITY HALL THIRD FLOOR 15 WEST KELLOGG BOULEVARD SAIlVT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102-1615 � AA-ADA-EEO Employer o S" 703 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Randy C. Kelly, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: MARCIA MOERMOND LEGISLATIVE HEARING OFFICER GERALD HENDRICKSON DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY ManuelJ Cervanfes, CaryA[lorney crvrt Di�rs�o„ 400 Ciry Ha(1 I S West Kellogg Blvd Safnt Paul, Minnesota i5102 Telephorze: 65I 266-8710 Facsimile: 65T 298-5619 MEASUREMENT UNDER LEGISLATIVE CODE 409.06 (i)(2) JULY 30, 2005 FACTS On July 15, 2005, you sent me a memo asking far my advice concerning a matter pending before you far a legislative hearing. Paul and Katrina Wentzel, doing business as the Wine Thief, applied for an off-sale liquor license for 1785 Saint Claim Avenue. James Thomas objected on the grounds that this location was within'/z mile of his off-sale liquor store, Thomas Liquors, in violation of Legislative Code § 409.06(i)(2). The Office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection (LIEP) provided evidence that measuring building-to-building, the new location was more than'/z mile from Mr. Thomas' location. LIEP therefare recommended that the license be issued. Mr. Thomas contended that the measurement should be made from the lot line at 1785 Saint Clair Avenue to the lot line of his store, in which case the WentzePs store would be within'/z mile of Thomas Liquors. You asked the following: QUESTION Should the'h mile measurement required in Legislafive Code § 409.06(i)(2) be made from lot line to lot line? DISCUSSION In my opinion, the measurement should not be made from the lot lines for the following reasons. AA-ADA-EEO Employer o.� - �03 Marcia Moermond July 30, 2005 Page 2 Legislative Code § 409.06 (i) deals with license location restrictions. The ardinance in question, Legislative Code § 409.06(i)(2) states: No off-sale license shall be issued to any location within a half-mile radius of any e�sting ofF sale establishment, except in the downtown business district, where the distance requirement shall be a radius of three hundred (300) feet. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no off=sale liquor establishment shall be located within a half-mile radius of the Xcel Energy Center. According to this ordinance, then, the measurement of the ih mile radius should be from a "location" being licensed to an"establishmenY' with an existing license. Neither of these terms aze defined by Legislative Code chapter 409. The word "establislunenY' is used frequently in this chapter, usually in the context that suggests the word means the place of business, which, as Director Janeen Rosas points out in her July 14, letter to you, is the Webster's Dictionary definition of the word. However, the phrase "place of business" is no clearer than "establishmenP' since that phrase arguably could also include all of the property to the lot line. There is no case law applying Legislative Code § 409.06(i)(2) or defining these terms. When, as here, the words are ambiguous, the meaning is determined by ascertaining the legislative intent. Minn. Stat. § 64516. A number of factors point to the conclusion that the City in enacting Legislative Code § 409.06(i)(2) intended the measurement in this case to be made from the building, and not the lot line. The most persuasive consideration is that in several other situations, Legislative Code chapter 409 expressly requires measurements to be made from the lot lines. It would follow that if the Council wanted the measurement in this case to be from the lot lines, it would have said so, as it did in these other situations. In particular, in the very next sub-section, Legislative Code § 409.06 (i)(3) states: No license shall be issued for an off-sale location which is within three hundred (300) feet of residentially zoned property, a park or a licensed child-care center, said three hundred (300) feet being calculated and computed as the distance measured from the property line of the premises or building proposed as the location for the off-sale liquor license to the property line of any residentially zoned properiy, park or child care center in the area for which the license is sought. Thus the City Council knew how to require measurements from the lot line rather than from the building when that was its intent. The lack of any mention of the lot line when measuring between two off-sale liquor establishments, when the Council has expressly required lot line AA-ADA-EEO Employer DS� �03 Marcia Moermond July 30, 2QQ5 Page 3 measurements in the same section when measuring from a liquor establislunent to a residential properiy, a park or a child-caze center, strongly suggests that it did not intend the off-sale to off- sale measurement to be from the lot lines. Note that the Legislative Code also expressly requires measurements to be from lot line to lot line in the case of certain measurements relating to outside service areas ( Legislative Code § 409.06 (g)), and measurements between licensed premises and a church or school (Legislative Code § 409.06 (n)) and certa.in measurements relating to transfers or changes in service areas (Legislative Code § 409.11 (b) and (d)). I would also point out that when ascertaining the legislative intent, the purpose of the legislation is a factor. See Minn. Stat. § 64516 (1), (3), and (4). The purpose of liquor regulation is to protect the public morals. Dunnell Minn. Digest INTOXICATING LIQUORS §§ 2.01 (4th ed.). The purpose here is to protect the public from an undue concentration of liquor establishments, not to protect the existing license holder from competition. The fact situation here is typical. The difference between measuring from the buildings or from the lot line is a matter of a few feet. As to the concentration, this difference of a few feet on a'h mile measurement is negligible, so, in the absence of express language requiring lot line to lot line measurement, there is no reason to suppose the Council intended that method of measurement as more protective of public morals. Finally, the interpretation of LIEP is further indicafion of legislative intent, unless it is clearly contrary to the explicit provisions of the law. Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (8). Here it appears that LIEP's interpretation of this provision is that the measurement is not made from the lot lines when applying Legislafive Code 409.06 (i)(2). That ardinance, at a minimum, does not expressly require measurements from the 1ot lines, so LIEP's method is entitled to be followed. CONCLUSION Nothing in the ordinances or any other law states that the measurements between Thomas Liquors and the Wine Thief be from lot line to lot line. LIEP's building-to-building measurement far the purposes of the '/z mile requirement found in Legislative Code § 409.06 (i)(2) is the legally correct method of ineasurement for that requirement. cc: Members of the City Council Mayor Randy Kelly Manuel Cervantes Trudy Moloney Janeen Rosas Christine Rozek AA-ADA-EEO Employer os-7o3 OFF[CE OF LLCENSE, INSPECTSONS AND ENVII20NMENTAL PROTEC770N Janeen E. Rosas, Director C�Y �r' SA�1T PA� COMMERCEBUILDlNG Telephnne. 651-366-9090 Randy KeZly, Mayor 8 Founh S[. E. Suite 200 FacsimJe: 651-?66-9724 Saint Paul, Minnuota 55107-10?4 Web: wxnecistpaul.mn.usqeep July 13,2005 Mazcia Moermond Legislative Hearin� Officer for the City of Saint Paul 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Re: licence application at 1785 St. Clair Ave. Dear Ms. Moermond: The above-referenced matter was recently referred to you for a legislative hearing with a recommendation that the license be issued. Since that referral, a factual question has arisen for me regarding that recommendation. I am writing to advise you that I am suspending LIEP's recommendation regazding this license to enable me to analyze and resolve this factual question. As soon as I do so, which will be very quickly, I wili advise you of LIEP's final recommendation regarding this license application. I ask that the legislative hearing on this matter be kept open until you receive this final recommendation. Sincerely, 4� �. ��� Janeen E. Rosas, Director Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection cc: Christine Rozek ,�',�rs�ie ��saai'Ch �8�rter �1UL � 8 2005 - i� / �_' July 14, 2005 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Randy Ke1Ty, Mayor Marcia Moermond Legislative Hearing Officer for the City of Saint Paul 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Re: licence application at 1785 Saint Ciair Avenue Dear Ms. Moermond: oS- �03 OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPEC170N5 AND ENVII20NMENTAL PROTECTfON Janeen E. Rosas, Director COMMERCEBUILDIAiG 7'elephone.� 6�7-?66-9090 BFourthSt.E,Suue?00 Faa�imrle: 6i1-266-9124 Saint Paul, Minnesata 55101-1024 Web: xnw✓.ci.stpaul.mn.us/[iep I am writing to rescind my July 13, 2005 suspension of LIEP's recommendation in the above-referenced matter, and to reinstate LIEP's recommendation for approval of this license. The reasons for LIEP's final recoxnmendation are as follows: Section 409.06 (i)(2) of tt�e Saint Paul Legislative Code (the code) provides that `ho off-sale liquar license shail be issued to any location within a half-mile radius of any existing off-sale establishment." However, the code does not specify how the half-mile is to be measured, whether from store to store, from property line to pzoperty line or by some other formula. In order to interpret this code provision, I looked at definitions of operative terms, I considered the policy objecfives of this licensing requirement and I reviewed other proximity restrictions in the code. Licznsing provisions rea late activities, not properiy. Proximity restrictions are intended to protect city residents from secondary impacts of licensed activities, which generally are conducted witl�in buildings. The code defines "off-sale" as the sale of liquor in retail stores. Websters New Coliea ate Dictionary defines "establishmenY' as a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff. These factors suggest that the half-mile measurement for an off-sale liquor license should be from building to building rather than from property line to property line. A review of selected proximity restrictions for similar licensed activities supports this analysis: A liquor establishment applying for an entertauunent license must give notice to residents living within 350 feet of the main entrance of the establishment to be licensed, and obtain the consent of at least 60% ofthem. Sec. 411.04 (b) ofthe code. An on-sale liquor establishment gets a license that permits sales of liquor in specified parts of their premises. They can get a license for a temporary extension of this service area to an indoor or outdoor area (patio), but it must be adj acent to such licensed premises, and they must get the consent of 60% of / �, / ( O,S - - 7D3 owners and residents within 200 feet of such premises. Sec. 409.11(b) of the code. "Premises," as used in this code provision clearly means building. Currency exchange businesses, defined as people engaged in the business of cashin� checks, drafts, money orders or travelers' checks for a fee, must be at least 100 feet from any residential lot or dish Sec. 65.512 of the city's zoning code. The building in which a bowling alley , billiard hall , indoor azchery range, indoor tennis court, racquet ball and hand ball court, dance hall, electronic �ame room, indoor skating rink and similar forms of indoor commercial recreation must be at least 100 feet from the closest point of any residential lot in a residenrial dishict. Sec. 65.644 of the city's zoning code. Buildin�s containiug adult businesses must be specified distances from other buildings containing adult businesses, from residentially zoned property and from any protected use such as day caze centers, churches, eta Sec. 65.662 of the city's zoning code. The proximity restricrion for off-sale Iiquor stores is not the only one in the code that is silent about the means of ineasurement. And there are some proximity restrictions, primarily in the zoning code, that stipulate measurements are to be from properry line to property line. However, for the reasons outlined above, I am persuaded that the proper means of ineasuring the haif-mile proximity restriction between off-sale liquor estabiishments is from building to building. When measured from buiiding to building, the distance between the existing liquor establishxnent and the one proposed at 1785 Saint Clair is greater than a half-mile. Sincerely, ��.�.... �. �� Janeen E. Rosas, Director Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection cc Christine Rozek o�- ���� MINIJTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING THE WINE TI�IEF —1787 ST. CLAIl2 AVENIJE Monday, July 11, 2005 Room 330 Courthouse, 15 Kellogg Boulevard West Mazcia Moernnond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 1030 am. STAFF PRESENT: Kristine Schweinler, License, Inspections, Environmental Protection (LIEP) The following appeazed: Paul Wentzel, President of The Wine Thief; Katrina Wentzel, Secretary/Treasurer of The Wine Thief; both of 1555 Sazgent Avenue. Mazcia Moermond explained that this is an application for an Off Sale Liquor License. She will start off with a staff report, hear from the applicant about the business, from people who aze in objection to the issuance of the license, people who are in favor of the issuance, and then she will talk to the applicant about concerns. This is a legislative Heazing to make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council can grant the license, grant it with conditions, or send the matter to an Administrative Law Judge (AL� for review. The City Council cannot deny the license until after it has been through a hearing with an ALJ. The ALJ process takes four to six months. The City Council can accept, reject, or modify the findings. Tl�ere is a public hearing in front of the ALJ and before the City Council. Kristine Schweinler reported this is an application by The Wine Thief, Inc, doing business as the Wine Thief for an off sale liquor store at 1787 St. Clair Avenue. The application has been approved by Licensing and Zoning; Environmental Health will make an inspection after the store is licensed and operating. LIEP is not recommending any conditions be placed on the license. This is an off sale liquor license issued by the State of Minnesota. If the location, distance, etc. meets the City's requirements, this information is forwarded to the State of Minnesota and the license is issued. Mrs. Wentzel stated they are proposing an off sale store with no intents to sell hard liquor or tobacco and with a small selection of ale and saki. The business meets the distance requirements. The location has been retailed for over 60 days. This is a commercial area in a residential neighborhood. They have been approved for parking and have a parking lot that exceeds the four spaces required by Zoning. They received a una.niinous vote &ozn the district council in fauor of the license with restrictions that they do not sell hard liquor or tobacco. They are in favor of the idea that the license would not transfer if they vacate. The City requires 75% approval from the neighborhood. The Wentzels petitioned the neighbarhood and received more than 75°/a. Ms. Moermond asked were four parking spaces required. Ms. Schweinler responded there were four parking spaces required as a retaii use; it is a continued use of what was there. Ms. Moermond stated this license is not transferable, to which Ms. Schweinier responded no licenses are transferable. �S �03 MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING FOR THE WINE THIEF Page 2 Ms. Moermond stated the Wentzels are in agreement on putting a restriction on the license about hard liquor, but. Ms. Moermond does not Imow if it is enforceable. Ms. Schweinler responded they do not normally put restrictions on what type of product is sold; however, they can put restrictions on parking, hours of operations, and size of container. Mzs. Wentzel asked is there a way to formalize an agreement with the community. Ms. Moermond responded the City cannot limit someone's right to apply for a separate license that they have a legal right to apply for. The Wentzels can come to a cvritten agreement with the neighborhood, and they would need to pursue that sepatately. Ms. Moermond asked about delivery trucks. Mrs. Wentzel responded that Jim Thomas of Thomas Liquors spoke at the district council meeting and said that they should eapect 46 delivery trucks a day, but he has a full off sale store. The Wentzels will be working with eight vendors, two of which share a truck, and the Wentzels wili be picking up one order, so that makes six. They can stagger the delivery. These are 16 foot box trucks. Most are in the neighborhood anyway delivering to Heartland and Groveland Tap. The store has been retail for some time and has been getting weekly deliveries. The previous stare had cast iron things that were brought in using bigger trucks. Ms. Moermond asked about the geographic requirements. According to Ordinance 409.06, responded Ms. Schweinler, there is a half mile distance between off sale licenses. They have measured by walking the distance and plat maps; there is more than a half mile between this license and any other license. This is zoned retail and it is a retail use. Also, there is no church or school within 300 feet. The petition is for 75% of a11 residents, and the owners have met that requirement Ms. Moermond asked is there a study or objective information about increased traffic due to a liquor use as opposed to some other kind of use. Ms. Schweinler responded there are no formal studies, but on sale liquor is a retail of a lesser use than a clothing store, barber shop, etc. will create. There are usually one or two customers at a time. They do not see an increase in traffic or parking. Ms. Moermond stated alley use came up. Mrs. Wentzel responded the pazking lot is accessible by alley by Fairview or Wheeler. Fairview is busy and VJheeler is residential. Either side of The Wine Thief is retail business, and they share a parking lot with the toy store. One side is an architecture store, which also has a back parking lot. Ms. Moermond asked is there a variance for alley use. Ms. Schweinler responded the alley is considered a public right of way, so it is not an issue. Public Works would deal with any obshuctions or parking issues in the public right-of-way. (Ms. Schweinler gave Ms. Moermond a map.) Ms. Moermond asked is this a space they will be leasing. Mrs. Wentzel responded they have been leasing it since May and there is a three-year lease. Ms. Moermond asked aze there plans for physical improvements. Mrs. Wentzel responded they haue appeazed before the Housing and Land Use Committee for Macalester Groveland Community Council. One member expressed a concern that it was a Class 5 lot. The Wentzels spoke to the landlord and decided that they will hold off on doing the lot until the lease is up ��^� �� MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING FOR THE WINE THIEF Page 3 because they do not know how successful their business will be and the substantial cost of pauing. The second time they went before the committee, another person did not want them to pave it because of concerns about drainage. The Wentzels aze open to what the community wants them to do with the lot. Ms. Schweinler added that the paving would require permits and the drainage issue would be dealt with at that time. Ms. Moermond stated this is not far from a SuperAmerica. There is litter associated with convenience stores, and the Wentzels will be victims of trash being strewn azound the neighborhood from time to time. Mrs. Wentzel responded it is a condition of the lease. Also, the bags are handled, and are less likely to be tossed. People aze more likely to bring them to their car. Ms. Moermond asked how many square feet is the store and the hours of operation. Mrs. Wentzel responded almost 950 Squaze feet. They will open sometime between 10:00 and 11:00 a.m. and close at 8:00 Monday through Thursday, closed on Sunday, 10:00 to 10:00 on Friday and Saturday. Heidi Ellerman, 1772 Sargent Avenue, appeared and stated she wrote a letter. They live on the corner of the alley. Two letters (sent to Ms. Moermond) were received in favor of this petition: One is a neighbor of the Wentzels who live on the 1500 block of Sazgent, which is not close, and another letter appeazs to be from a co-worker of Mrs. Wentzel's. The parking bothers Ms. Ellerman because she thinks this particular building needs 12 parking places: four for each shop and one for each aparkment upstairs. The ovuner of the building k�as leased out spaces to the architect next door, so parking is tight in this area. In the evening, the people in the apartments come home. The architect goes home at azound 5:00. Also, she is concerned about the unrestricted nature of this license. The applicant could change their mind and make it a full liquor store, as the City cannot enforce the liquor they sell. Ms. Ellerman believes there will be excessive traffic in the area. Hardly anything comes through the back. The issues are also of increased air pollution. There had not been big trucks delivering there until the grocery store, which may have had one truck a week. They did not have many people pazking in back because they had almost no foot traffic due to the fact that they delivered to people. Ms. Ellerman does not see an increased need for this shop. There are liquor stores in close proximity that have wine and extremely knowledgeable personnel. She did not see any people that live in the alley writing to support this issue; however, there are four letters from people on this street that haue written in opposition. James Thomas, 2126 Iglehart Avenue, Proprietor of Thomas Liquors, 1941 Grand Avenue, appeared and stated he came to clazify some of the issues from his perspective of being in business 47 years. He knows some of the problems of an off sale license. Ms. Moermond asked does he have a full range of liquor wine, beer, etc. and does he sell tobacco. Mr. Thomas responded yes to all counts and Ms. Schweinler added that he also has a license for retaii foods. Mr. Thomas stated it is hard for people to forecast how many deliveries there will be in a week. He has between 30 to 40 deliveries. They are a full service liquor store, so they get liquor and tobacco deliveries, but they are primarily a wine shop: about 2/3 of their business is wine. Thomas Liquors has been there since the end of Prohibition. Also, the tr�c in the alley is going to be an assue in the fuhxre. The people who signed off on tYus license did not understand 05=1c�3 MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING FOR THE WINE THIEF Page 4 the problems in the a11ey they will get. The restrictions to not sell tobacco and liquor cannot be enforced. The neighbors who accepted that as fact were not aware these were not enforceable conditions. Also, Mr. Thomas said he wants to challenge the application on the basis of Chapter 409 of the City Code: "No off sale license shall be issued to any location within a half-mile radius of any existing off-sale establishment except in the Downtown business district, where the distance requirement shall be a radius of three hundred (300) feet. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no off-sale liquor establishment shall be located within a half-mile radius of the Xcel Energy Center." Mr. Thomas contends that this license is within half a mile from his business and he challenges the opinion that it is not He will be happy to substantiate that in any manner that this hearing would want. He has measured it himself and has other measurements. His measurement figures they are 200 feet short. A satellite measurement comes up 63 feet short of a half mile. Ms. Moermond asked from what point to what point is he measuring. Mr. Thomas responded property line to property line. Ms. Moermond asked is that the same way Ms. Schweinler was measuring. Mr. Schweinler responded they use City plat maps, and they had an inspector out there. Ms. Moermond asked about a space witkain a larger building. Ms. Schweinler responded the location closest to the retail operation to the nearest property line. This location is not considered a mall. This case would be property line to property line. This was checked several times in her office using registered plat maps and an inspector used a roller tape. Mr. Thomas asked how they measure with a roller tape if it is property line to property line. Ms. Schweinler responded they have to walk and try to figure the distances. It is 2,482 feet for half mile. Mr. Thomas stated half a mile is 2,620. Ms. Schweinler responded that the correct distance has been measured and calculated. Mr. Thomas stated he would like to challenge that measurement. He would be glad to substantiate his contention. Ms. Ellerman stated she has been in the neighborhood since 1967. There aze a few people who have been here longer than she has. She does not see them coming forward and writing a note in favor of this. Ms. Moermond noted the following letters that she received in objection to the license application: 1) Ava-Dale Johnson and Chazles Johnson, 1788 Sargent Avenue; 2) a second letter from the Johnsons, 3) Mazk A. Jossart, President and CEO of HIeinman Realty Company, 5301 East River Road, Suite 101, Minneapolis representing Irving Rein Company who owns an apartment at 1776 St. Ciair Avenue; and 4) Timothy Ellerman, 1772 Sargent Avenue.