03/19/201 FRANCISG. anv 3146133172 EXCISE PAGE 01/08 6 15: THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY EXCISE COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE. ‘GWENDOLYN Q, CHERRY-SIMMS INTERIM EXCISE COMMISSIONER CITY HALL - ROOM 416 a (314) 622-4191 Fax (314) 619-3172 SLAY RICHARD GRAY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY March 10, 2016 Enhanced Spirits, LLC DBA: Tropical Liqueurs Connie Vaughn, Ownet/Manager 1800-06 South 10" Street Saint Louis, MO 63014 Re: Protest Hearing against Continuation of a Liquor Livense at 1800-06 South 10" Street D/B/A Tropical Liqueurs. ‘Mrs. Vaughn: The file of the Excise Division reflects that on 11-6-15 Liquor License Letters of Protest were given to Jeremy Mehrle Protest Representative. On 11-18-15 Liquor License Letters of Protest were turned in by the Protest Representative. On 12-15-15 a 30-day cut off for the submission of further signatures was set for 1-13-16 at 4:30 p.m. On 12-15-15 Protest Packet was hand delivered to Protest Representative and Licensee. On 1-13-16 Protest Representative submitted Protest Petition, On 1-26-16 Protest Hearing was scheduled for 2-26-16 at 2:00 p.m. On 1-28-16 Protest Hearing letters delivered to Protest Representative and Licensee. On 2-16-16 Protest Hearing placards were posted. On 2-26-16 Protest Hearing was held. FINDINGS OF FACT 1} On February 26, 2016 the protest hearing was held and the following persons participated in the hearing: ‘Tom Yarbrough serving as Exeise Commissioner William Tomber Protest Representative Pattick McCarthy Attomey for Licensee ‘Adam Shook Liquor Control Officer Connie Vaughn Licensee Owner/Manager Bradlee Thompson License Owner/Manager Sgt. John McLaughlin Nuisance Property Officer Sgt. David Bonenberger District Sergeant ~ 3" District Ryan Brockehmitt Citizen Raymond Soaib Citizen03/10/2016 15:39 3146133172 EXCISE PAGE 02/08 Matt Bowers Citizen Macy Mehrle Citizen Alex Finn Citizen Chris Callan Citizen Benjamin Kurdy Citizen 2) The following exhibits were introduced and accepted into evidence: Excise Exhibit 1 Ordinance 68536 Excise Exhibit 2 Excise File of Licensee including LCO Adam Shook’s Investigation report . Protest Exhibit 3 Public Nuisance Notice Protest Exhibit 4 Peak Time Crime Analysis Protest Exhibits 5-8 Photographs Protest Exhibit 9 Text correspondence between William Tomber and Bradlee ‘Thompson Protest Exbibit 10-11 Photographs Protest Exhibit 12 Letter from Michael Ziemann President of Soulard Restoration Group Protest Exhibit 13 Letter from neighborhood citizens Protest Exhibit 14 E-mail from William Tomber to Jack Coatar, 7" Ward Alderman Protest Exhibit 15 Letter from neighborhood citizens Section 14.08.10 of the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis, provides in part as follows: “Protest Against License or Application ~ When and How Initiated” (A) A protest against issuance, renewal or continuation of a package, drink or C.O.L. license or a 3:00 am. closing permit shall be initiated by submission to the Excise Commissioner of a written letter of protest signed by either ten (10) or more persons residing or conducting business, ot ten (10) or more Persons owning property, within the petition circle of the liquor establishment Which is the subject of the protest.... Such letter shall contain the name and address of the licensed premises or proposed licensed premises which is the subject of the protest, the type of license being protested and the name of the person who shall serve as the protest representative, Upon verifying that there are sufficient signatures on the protest letter to initiate a protest, the Excise Commissioner shall issue protest petition to the protest representative. He shall also notify the licensee of applicant whose license of application is the subject of the protest, the Alderman for the Ward in which the licensed premises is or would be located and the police department that such a protest03/10/2016 15:33 3146133172 EXCISE PAGE @3/08 has been initiated against the license of application. Such notice shall contain an explanation of the protest procedures as established by this ordinance and title, and by the rules and regulations of the Excise Commissioner... Section 14.08.140 Protests — Necessity of majority of signatures on petition protesting continuation of license — Effect of majority of signatures on petition protesting a license application: (A) A protest against continuation of a license may only be sustained by the Excise Commissioner ifthe protest petitions submitted to him to protest such continuation contain the signatures of either a majority of the persons residing or conducting business within the petition circle of the licensed premises which is the subject of the protest or a majority of the persons owning property within such petition circle. If, after the first phase of the hearing is completed, the Excise Commissioner determines that the protest petitions submitted to him in protest of the continuation of a license contain the signatures of neither a majority of the persons residing or conducting business within the petition circle of the licensed premises which is the ‘subject of the protest nor a majority of the persons owning property within such petition circle then he shall deny the protest and shall not consider evidence of whether continuation of the license would be detrimental to the neighborhood in which the licensed premises is located. 3) An investigation revealed that there were 43 property owners within the 500 foot radius, a majority of which is 23. 4) An investigation revealed that there were 65 occupants/enants within the 500 foot, radius, a majority of which is 34, 5) Protest Petitions submitted by the Protest Representative contained 36 property owners’ signatures. (Excise Exhibit 2) 6) Protest Petitions submitted by Protest Representative contained 0 ccupants/tenants signatures, (Excise Exhibit 2) Rales and Regulations regarding Protest Procedures Section IV General Rules and Regulations provides in part: 9) Persons who sign both a petition for a liquor license and a protest petition against the license will have their names removed from the petition and protest, but shall remain in the total count or tally. NOTE: Any person who signs both for and against the issuance or renewal of a license will be accepted as a valid signer by one of the following methods: 8) By appearance at the protest hearing and testify, under ath, as to his/her position in the matter.1/08 03/10/2016 15:39 3146133172 EXCISE PAGE 04/06 'b) By letter to the Excise Commissioner clearly stating their position, dated and signed and received by the Excise Division prior to the conclusion ofthe protest hearing. 7) Property owner, 1801 South 9° Street, LLC already signed Protest Petition. ‘Therefore, David Sicbert’s individual signature is a duplicate and will not be counted, This removes | property owner signature from the Protest Petition. 8) Property Owner of 1720 South 10" Street, Raymond Soaib, was not a property ‘owmer 30 days before Protest Letters were issued and therefore is not a property ‘owner for purposes of the Protest Petition. This removes | Property Owner signature from the Protest Petition. 9) Property Owner of 1829 South 10” Street, Joseph Rowley, was not a property owner for 30 days before Protest Letters were issued and therefore is not a property owner for purposes of the Protest Petition. This removes 1 Property Owner signature from the Protest Petition. 10) Property Owner, Robert Brandhorst at 1834 South 9* Street, is outside the radius per plat issued 11-6-15 and therefore ineligible to sign Protest Petition. This removes 1 Property Owner signature from Protest Petition. 1) Property Owner, Evan Roller at 911 Soulard Street, is a duplicate signature, Signature for Evan Roller was previously recorded at 909 Soulard Street. This removes 1 Property Owner signature from Protest Petition. 12) Property Owner, Carissa Roller at 911 Soulard Street, is a duplicate signature. Signature for Carissa Roller was previously recorded at 907 Soulard Street. This removes 1 Property Owner signature from Protest Petition. 13) Based on the finding of Excise Exhibit 2 mentioned above, an investigation revealed that there were 43 Property Owners within $00 feet radius, a majority of which is 23. The protest has 30 valid signatures, which constitutes the majority necessary for a successful protest. Section 14.08.040 of the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis, provides in part as follows: “License detrimental to neigbborhood-Factors to be considered by Excise ‘Commissioner in making determination.” (A) In determining whether issuance, renewal or continuation of a retail liquor license would be detrimental to the neighborhood in which the licensed03/10/2016 15:39 3146133172 EXCISE PAGE 05/8 premises is or would be located the Excise Conmmissioner shall consider the following factors, giving weight thereto as he deems appropriate: 1. With regard to applications for issuance of a License and protests against such applications, the character of the neighborhood in which the premises proposed to be licensed are located, with particular consideration being given to the proximity of the proposed licensed premises to parks, churches, schools, playgrounds, residences and hospitals and with regard to renewal applications and protests against the renewal or continuation ofa license, any changes in the character of the neighborhood since the issuance of the license; 2. Loitering in the immediate vicinity of the licensed premises by persons frequenting the licensed premises; 3. Littering committed by persons frequenting the licensed premises or by the licensee, his agents, servants, ot employees; 4, Drinking in public by persons frequenting the licensed premises; 5. Lewd and indecent conduct, including but not limited to public urination, exhibited by persons frequenting the licensed premises or by the licensee, his employees, servants or agents, whether such behavior occurs on the licensed premises or in the immediate vicinity thereof, 8. Sale, use or possession of illegal drugs upon or in the immediate vicinity of the licensed premises by persons frequenting the licensed premises or by the licensee, his employees, servants or agents; 9. Harassing of intimidating behavior exhibited by persons frequenting or ccongregating about the licensed premises towards persons living in the neighborhood in which the licensed premises are located or towards persons passing by the licensed premises; 10. Noise associated with operation of the licensed premises or caused by persons ‘frequenting the licensed premises; 11, With regards to applications for issuance of a license and protests against such applications, existing street and sidewalk congestion in the immediate vicinity of the licensed premises, and with regards to renewal applications and protests against renewal or continuation of a license, the street and sidewalk congestion associated with operation of the licensed premises; Ke ae existence of proper lighting and appropriate parking facilities, or the lack ereof;3/10/2016 15:99 3146133172 EXCISE PAGE 06/08 13, Other factors which, due to the character ofthe neighborhood or of the licensed premises or proposes licensed premises, would be relevant to the éetermination of whether issuance, renewal or continuation of a license would be detrimental to the neighborhood in which the licensed premises is or would be located. (B) The Excise Commissioner may find that issuance, renewal or continuation of license would be detrimental to the neighborhood in which a licensed premise if or would be located without finding that such detriment is or ‘would be due to the fault or negligence, or is or would be the responsibility, of the licensee of applicant. For purposes of this section a person shall be considered to frequent a licensed premise(s) if he patronizes the licensed premises or if he loiters about in the immediate vicinity of the licensed premises but would not do so except for the existence of the licensed premises. 14) Testimony was offered and I find that, at least on occasion, littering occurs in the immediate vicinity of the licensed premises by persons frequenting the licensed premises. 15) Testimony was offered and I find that, at least on occasion, public urination ‘occurs in the immediate vicinity of the licensed premises by persons frequenting the licensed premises. 16) Testimony was offered and I find that, atleast on occasion, noise caused by persons frequenting the licensed premises is excessive and has a detrimental effect on the neighborhood and its residents, 17) Testimony was offered and I find that, at least on occasi possession of illegal drugs upon or in the immediate premises by persons frequenting the licensed preraises. there is sale, use or ity of the licensed 18) Testimony was offered and I find that, at least on occasion, harassing or intieidating behavior is exhibited by persons frequenting or congregeting about the licensed premises towards persons living in the neighborhood in which the licensed are located or toward persons passing by the licensed premises. 19) Testimony was offered and I find that, at least on occasion, street congestion cours in the immediate vicinity of the licensed premises by persons frequenting the licensed premises. 20) Testimony was offered and I find that the licensed premises lacks appropriate parking facilities to accommodate persons frequenting the licensed premises and the resulting parking issues are detrimental to the neighborhood and its residents.03/10/2016 15:39 3146133172 EXCISE PAGE 07/28 LAW ‘The protestors were successful in providing signatures of a majority of either property owners or oceupant/tenants within the 500 feet radius as set forth in Section 14.08.140 of the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis Pursuant to Section 14.08.150 (A) of the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis “If the excise commissioner determines after the first phase of the protest hearing that the protest petitions submitted to him contain the signatures of either: (1) a majority of the persons residing or conducting business within the petition cele of the licensed premises which is the subject of the protest; or (2) a majority of the persons owning property within such petition circle, he shall sustain the protest unless the licensee shows by a preponderance of the evidence submitted at hearing that renewal or continuation of the license would not be detrimental to the neighborhood in which licensed premises is located.” This office shall also consider the factors in Section 14.08.040 of the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis as outlined above to determine if the continuation of licensee's retail liquor license would be detrimental to the neighborhood in which licensee is located, After consideration of al testimony and evidence submitted at the protest hearing occurring 2-26-15 it is the determination of this office that licensee has failed to meet its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence submitted that the continuation of this license would not be detrimental to the neighborhood in which licensed premises is located. Pursuant to Section 14.08.150 (B) of the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis “df the Excise Commissioner sustains a protest against continuation of @ license he shall cancel such license effective one month after any decision is filed upholding such protest, ORDER Itis the order of this Commissioner that the protest against the continuation of the retail Liquor license issued to Enhanced Spirits, LLC D/B/A Tropical Liqueurs located at 1800-06 South 10" Street is hereby sustained. Therefore, pursuant to this order, the retail liquor license issued to licensce Enhanced Spirits, LLC D/B/A Tropical Liqueurs shall be cancelled effective April 9, 2016.03/10/2816 15:39 3146133172 EXCISE Pace @8/08 ce: 3 District Captain-Shawn Dace, Neighborhood Improvement Specialist Sandy Colvin, 7" Ward Alderman - John “Jack” Costar, Dizector of Public Safety ~ Richard Gray, Attomey for Licensee — Patrick McCarthy and Protest Representative William Tomber. Received by: ‘Date: March 10,2016