Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2007

Home

Business claims it meets minimum requirements for license upgtad~ City council still denies request Citation: Deep Dish Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, No. A04-728 MINNESOTA - Deep Dish Inc. operated a restaurant in Minneapoli$. Because of competition from other restaurants, Deep Dish applied fot a liquor-license upgrade from sales of wine and beer to mixed drinksi . Neighboring residents were opposed to the upgrade because'$ey alleged Deep Dish hadn't complied with community agreem~nts in the pas~. MelT sev- eral hearings, the city council denied Deep Dish's application. C.. Deep Dish appealed, arguing its Equal Protection rights were viQlated :be- cause it met all legal requirements for a liquor-license upgrade and waS still denied a license. Page 8 - Special Issue: Biweekly Edition Z.B. motivated by intent to discriminate. The church was able to prove that it was selectively treated fr:omothers similarly situation because the village imposed subjective, arbitrary, pndunrea- sonable conditions and requirements upon the church that it had mever 'im- posed on any other construction project of similar size or scope. However, the church failed to satisfy the second element of the [eql1al pro- tection standard. The church failed to show that there was no rational basis for the difference in treatment or that the village showed an intention to discrimi- nate. There was no evidence that the village acted irrationally in initially deny- ing the proposal. Therefore, the church's allegations had to be-disIpissed. - DEClSION:Affumed. The city council did not violate Deep Dish's right to equ~ PWtectiog.. The city council had. broad discretion in determining whethe~ to issue or renew a liquor license. Deep Dish claimed the city council violated its constitution~l tights!be- cause there was nothing on its application that disqualified itfronjl opt::lining a liquor license. . However, the city council was not required to grant a liquor liferise simply because the minimum requirements were met. Where:(he minimum requirttments were satisfied, the city council had to consider the application,qut ~t ~as 11.0t divested of its legislative authority and responsibil~ty to decide ~e merits of the application. . Ultimately, although Deep Dish met the application requireIlfents, the city council used its discretion to decide Deep Dish was' not a busine$s that should be awarded a liquor-license upgrade. see also: Montella v. City of Ottertail, 633 N. W2d86 (2001). see also: Bergm.ann v. City of Melrose, 420 N. W24 663 (1988).[ @ 2006 West, a Thomson business. Quinlan™ is a Thomson West brand. Any reproduction!is prohibited. 164 (.