|
I-ENUTES OF THE SPECXAL METING OF TIE
<br />EDINA CItLY COUNCIL XKLD AT EDINA WEST UPPER DIVISION
<br />OR JANUARY 13, 1915
<br />CrJuricil convened in special session at the Edina Vest Upper Division Auditorium
<br />at 7:30 p.m..
<br />A-nswering rollcall mere members Courtney, Richards, Schnidt:, Shaw 2nd Mayor Van
<br />Valkenburg .
<br />-%yor Van Valkenburg explained that this informal meeting had been called in
<br />response to inquiries received regarding the referendum on split liquor thzt
<br />will he held or, February 4, 1975. He recalled that the propose4 ordinance had
<br />hen granted First ReaGng on December 2, 1974, but that Seccnd Reading of the
<br />ordinance would not be. held until the results of the election are known. City
<br />Attorney Ericlcson explained that if the ordinance is adopted, it czn be mended
<br />at any time by the City Council in the same manner that* other ordinances are
<br />amended and emphasized that it is important to recognize that it is a "concept"
<br />ra'cher than an ordinarice that will be decided by the voters.
<br />explained the ordinaxe in detail and also explained the wording of the quest-
<br />ions which will appear on the ballot.
<br />S~GU~S are not affected in any way by the on-sale liquor ordinsnce aQd that.
<br />they will continue to operate as the only off-sale retail outlets for alcoholic
<br />Severages .
<br />raised by Nessrs. Scott T. Fzx, 5209 Ranens Drive, Charles E. Brohm, 5629 Zruce
<br />Place, C. T. Skanse, 6216 Parkwood Road, To Lea Todd, 5404 Park Place, Oarre11
<br />B~yd, 7204 Shannon Drive, and Mms. Jill Raga22 and Meredith Hart, Chaklady of
<br />the Edinz Human Relatiorrs Comissicn, who contendTd that the reference to the
<br />Xmicipal Liquor Stores was misleading and urged that it be omitted from the
<br />qfiestion. 2lr. Ericksor, explained that the word "and" in the question was of key
<br />laportance in the vmrding of the question and tnat this language had been recon-
<br />xen6ed by the Ninnesoca League oE Nmiicipzlities and usad by Richfield and othzr
<br />communities in their elections. W. Todd said that the ordir,ance should have
<br />more IlmitatiGns to require that the primary business is tire servirig of food.
<br />Erickson explsfned that the mnual report of a license holrler would be re-
<br />quired to indicate the clollar amounts for sale o€ liquor and the dollar mounts
<br />for the saie of food and chat the definitions used in the ordinance €or restauranix
<br />and fiotals are the same as the definitions in the State Statutes. Mr. Ward Thcmp-
<br />SCP, sai6 thar 20 crie frzd qcestioaed the wording of the FctTtion :&en he to& it
<br />arouad to be signed.
<br />so thac the Rzdisson South would not be the only locztion that would crr;aligy fcr a
<br />licer-se. Xr. Luce shmed a map w11Lch indicated 1,000 Zoot distalices from churches
<br />md schoo'ls in which arcss liquor licenses could not ba issued ufider the pzoposec!
<br />ordinance.
<br />restaurants gecerate traffic at a tine when other trafic is not kifig generated,
<br />%n tzms of land us.=, B license could be issued for a9 establishment en the South
<br />e-crd of France Ave. nezr the City limits.
<br />is qpropriate at &e Rsdisson South, it might also be appropriate at 50th 2nd
<br />Frznce: 44th and Francs, the Grancivl.et9 area, 70th and CahilP and Sorrthdale Center.
<br />52.2dded that the 1,000 fcot distance from cfiurches and schcols i.3 riot realistic
<br />from a ?lamer's s'ian6poht.
<br />r-estatxir~nLs &is follo~s: ?erkins, 200; Ciceros, 260; '3sytons, 140; Donaldsons,
<br />f?O, Birk's 3i.g Boy, 155; Hz. Big, 170; The Biltmore Notel, 150, vith an addi-
<br />Cio-nal 168 in the Cavvalicr Room, and said that the.Diplomat wculd ais:, probably
<br />qualify for E license,
<br />shouLd 'De g5vm to long-standicg taxpayers.
<br />distance fron sc'nrtols azci churches wod6 preclude sore long-stzatlug tazccayers,
<br />mi! that, if Zhc Split-Liquor Qaestion is qproved, he would recormend that this
<br />distance 5e ?-educed.
<br />&ire Erickson ssld th2t, If the Split-Liquor Question is passed, ehs Council has
<br />tke power tc adopt khe ordinance if it wishss, but that, without a favora5le
<br />vote, it does iiok have the power tu zdopr the ordirrance. tie added ths-t, even 2f
<br />the ordinaxe hs adopted, the Council has Che authority to decide wketker or wt
<br />CLo Issse e. licensel Bi response to a question from l4rs. Rzgatz, 14~. 33Se recallad
<br />thz klstosy of the Edfira LLqwur Stass?s. Ee told Xrs. Alison Fdx, 6639 Brittzny
<br />goad, ZhaC on-sale lic.ecaes have nat generzlly affected the sales oE cther idQn2ictl-
<br />pzl liquor stores. In response to a question of Mrs. Ja Ann fi'iodell, 73Cl Schey
<br />EcLve, Ere Hyde rzcalled the history of why the Iradisson South haci been btiii'it at
<br />5-2s present iocaticiz. Pir. Eycle saLd thzt be could not accurakly estimate sup-
<br />prt CCSBS cf the Cfty ~LLOT the Radisson, jut tFat the City already patrols the
<br />Fad5ssoa parking lot, In response 20 a question of Ms. Rosernarj Lmd, Assessor
<br />Kent Swacsoz eskimited t"mt, based on 1974 tax rates, cnch million do1lr.r~ of
<br />prwercy vefuation wuld generate approsF!r~ateIy $36,000 c.f those taxes and the
<br />City would becei%=e hss than $3,003. Be agreed with Xr. Todd tb%zC, undr!r the
<br />Fisc& Dispzricies b-w, ~~XES Et-om neiq construction after 1971 tl:at is classified
<br />Bfr. Erickson
<br />He clarified that the municipal liquor
<br />Questions regarding the wording of the Split-Liqtior Quzstion were
<br />J
<br />!
<br />Ek. Boy6 said that the ordinance should call for lower limits
<br />Xe responded to Nr. Zciyd's question, sayiag thst baxizse kstels and
<br />He safd thzt i2 h liqucr estabiishnent
<br />Mr. Eyie Iisteci seating capacit5es of existhg
<br />Councilman Shaw said thzt 'ne believed that consideratioc
<br />Be eqlaineci that the L,000 foot
<br />LE response to a question E~GT~I a gentlemm in the audrence,
|