Agenda - Council - 03/28/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

664 9. Constitutional Law ~=~230.3(5) Intoxicating Liquors City's conditioning of issuance of li- quor license on licensee's operation of fami- ly restaurant did not violate federal or state equal protection clauses, even though other licensees were not subject to same condition. M.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 7; U.S. C.A. Const. Amend. 14. 10. Intoxicating Liquors ~=~15 Locating liquor establishments in par- ticular areas for law enforcement pu. rposes is legitimate exercise of. city's police pow- ers. 11. Intoxicating Liquors ~=~15 City's conclusion that locating all li- quor-only establishments in downtown area would facilitate law enforcement and liqclor control was reasonable. Minn. 420 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES Syllabus by the Court 1. City council did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the liquor license renewals on the basis that Bergmann had discontinued operation of his restaurant and the taxes on the premises were delin- quent. 2. Conditioning the issuance of a li- quor license on the establishment of a fami- ly restaurant and limiting the number of liquor-only establishments to a particular area for law enforcement reasons are legit- i~nate governmental purposes and do not run afoul of the Constitution's equal pro- tection clause. 3. City of Melrose is not entitled to attorney's fees on appeal. Thomas W. Lies, Schroeder, Pennington & Lies, St. Cloud, for appellant. Robert Pottratz, Melrose City Atty., Meyer, Meyer & Pottratz, Melrose, for re- spondents. Heard, considered and decided by PARKER, P.J., and NIERENGARTEN and SCHULTZ', JJ. * Acting as judge of the Court of Appeals by ap- OPINION PARKER, Judge. Appellant Loren Bergmann, d.b.a. Tra- velounge and Bottle Shop, applied for re- newal of his liquor licenses for 1987 from respondent City of Melrose. After a con- tested-case hearing before an administra- tive law judge (ALJ), the ALJ recom- mended denying Bergmann's application. The city council then denied Bergmann's application because (1) there were unpaid real estate taxes and special assessments on the premises, and (2) Bergmann failed to operate a family restaurant in conjunction with his liquor store and the operation of that restaurant was a condition of the is- suance of the license. Bergmann chal- lenged the city council's action as arbitrary and capricious and as unconstitutionally de- nying him equal protection of the laws. The trial court disagreed. We affirm. FACTS In 1980, Bergmann purchased the Travel- ounge Family Restaurant (bar and restau- rant) and Bottle Shop (liquor store) from the Small Business Administration (SBA) by a contract for deed. Shortly thereafter, he applied for on-sale and off-sale intoxicat- ing liquor licenses and a Sunday on-sale liquor license from the Melrose City Coun- cil (city or city council). His stated purpose was to operate a liquor store and restau- rant on the property located at the corner of Interstate 94 and Highway 13 interstate interchange in the City of Melrose. The city council granted the licenses condi- tioned upon a family restaurant being oper- ated on the premises. Bergmann agreed to that condition. Around November 1981, Bergmann be- gan operating an off-sale liquor store (the Bottle Shop) on the property, but did not conduct business as an on-sale bar or res- taurant. Concerned that Bergmann was not operating the restaurant as he had promised, the city council advised Berg- mann that it would not renew his liquor licenses for 1982 unless he provided it with written assurance that a restaurant would pointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. 6, § 2.