Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />APRIL 27, 2011 <br />Display Permit in the Code. The Clerk noted that only 8 such permits <br />were issued in the entire State during 2011. Of the surrounding cities <br />surveyed, only Falcon Heights provides for such a permit, but has not had <br />a request for one in the past five years. The Clerk also noted that St. <br />John's Church was not interested in the availability of such permits, and <br />while LCRA indicated that they were likely not interested, would like to <br />have the opportunity if the occasion ever arises that they need one. It was <br />the consensus of the Council to not include Temporary Consumption & <br />Display Permits in the Code. Should LCRA make a request for one, the <br />Code could be amended at that time. <br />The Clerk then reviewed proposed amendments to Chapter 701, the <br />definitions section of the Code. The Council was in agreement with those <br />changes. The Clerk noted that changes proposed for Chapter 702, 3.2 <br />Percent Malt Liquor which clarify that temporary on -sale licenses can be <br />granted only to a club, charitable, religious, or non -profit organization that <br />has been in existence for at least three years. Another substantive change <br />to this section is the elimination of the requirement for a "Dancing and <br />Entertainment" License. Council was in agreement with the changes <br />proposed to this section. <br />The Clerk reviewed the changes proposed to Chapter 703, Intoxicating <br />Liquor. With regard to the definition of restaurant, the City Administrator <br />pointed out that the availability under the City Code for an On -Sale <br />License for a restaurant. There was discussion relative to the definition of <br />restaurant and the methodology used to tie building value to that <br />definition. It was the consensus of the Council to modify that definition to <br />include a higher building value. The City Administrator indicated that he <br />would make a recommendation on the higher value after some research. <br />The Clerk noted previous discussion relative to distance separation <br />between Off -Sale Liquor Stores. Of the surrounding cities surveyed, only <br />Maplewood requires a 1,000 foot separation between liquor stores. <br />The Council then discussed the requirements for liquor liability insurance <br />limits of $50,000 /$100,000, which mirror State Law. Of the surrounding <br />cities surveyed, only Roseville requires higher limits, those being <br />$500,000/$1 million. The City Administrator felt that the limits of <br />$50,000 /$100,000 were minimal, but noted that to increase these insurance <br />limits will cost businesses more money. The Council asked the City's <br />exposure with the lesser limits. The Administrator did not believe the City <br />had any exposure as negligence needs to be proven, but felt this was a <br />social responsibility question. The Council felt that the State should <br />address this issue and increase the minimum limits. The consensus was to <br />follow the State minimums in this matter. <br />5 <br />