Laserfiche WebLink
-74- <br /> Center. Meetings with .Apache management and merchants since that date <br /> have convinced him .of .their . concern about offending the sensibilities <br /> of the. City residents and their sincerity in insisting they- wouldn't <br /> put up with X-rated materials ,being sold in--the center. The Councilman <br /> said he .was- certain the Council- would have undertaken a lawsuit if <br /> Mr. Ochs were involved with X-rated materials. <br /> Planning Commission member, Judy Makowske,, .:then :reported .that after the <br /> November hearing, . she had met at the store with Mr. .Cavanaugh, Apache ' s <br /> counsel, and Mr. Ochs and was `.pleased to find .the. store::did not have <br /> "adult" written on it . as had been inferred during the- hearing. She <br /> said Mr. Ochs had told her that, though the store had a catalog of <br /> what might be offensive materials, he would dispense .with its use <br /> . .if it would not be acceptable to the community. <br /> Mr. Dubay then said there had been nine very good reasons the residents <br /> did not want the store permitted at Apache and reiterated his concerns <br /> .the store will now produce the same bad effect on the community as the <br /> Fun Center. <br /> At this point, about a dozen persons who- .had been unable to gain access <br /> to the building joined. the discussion. . One of these, Jim Zellmer, <br /> 3414 Downers Drive, was informed of the testimony which had already been <br /> developed by the Mayor who said she saw two questions regarding the <br /> ordinance modification; first, whether .this type of business belongs <br /> in :the City' s Zoning Ordinance and finally., whether pornographic materials <br /> • are being shown in the Apache store for- which there has been no evidence <br /> demonstrated. Steve Kuzma, 1818. Arthur Street N.E. , requested to speak <br /> though he is not actually a resident, saying he. is a -long-time shopper <br /> in St. Anthony. He said "even though the objections raised regarding <br /> .the video store , might not be valid now, granting permission for this <br /> type of store could lead to other -businesses which would be objectionable" . <br /> .Mrs. Makowske suggested that to "set the minds of the residents at ease, <br /> a ' smut ordinance ' should be developed to enable- the . .City to deal with <br /> pornography" . <br /> Marge Kocon, 3409 Belden Drive, asked for a definition 'of "pornography" <br /> and the City Attorney read the state statutes .defining obscenity. Mrs. <br /> Kocon then said she believed the Ordinance should be written "to <br /> this community 's standards" . Mr. Soth told her that in the .Miller vs . <br /> California the Supreme Court had permitted the contemporary community <br /> standards could be applied but that no stateor municipal statute may <br /> define obscenity in any other language than that adopted by the court. <br /> with. elements of community standards included and the City cannot <br /> adopt an- ordinance which is more restrictive than the state statute <br /> or what had .been defined by the Supreme Court to be "obscene" . As an <br /> .example he .said "the City cannot have an ordinance which says any type. <br /> of nudity. .is obscene" however, the City can .impose a greater penalty <br /> . . for a violation of the ordinance than provided for in the state statute, <br /> with a fine up to $500 and a jail sentence up to. 90 days . Mr. Soth <br /> reminded those present that the penalty must be imposed by a judge and, <br /> often before a jury. <br /> Mr. Dubay questioned why the state' s pollution standards can exceed the <br /> federal standards and the Attorney told him such standards aren't subject <br />